SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1963 Supreme(All) 170

B.D.GUPTA, H.C.P.TRIPATHI
GAJANAND – Appellant
Versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ORS. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
B.R.Avasthi, J.Swarup, K.C.SAXENA

TRIPATHI, J.


( 1 ) THIS First Appeal From Order arises out of proceedings under the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920.

( 2 ) THE appellant filed a petition under Section 10 of the Act before the court of the District judge, Mathura for being declared an insolvent on the ground that he was unable to pay his debts amounting to Rs. 50,000/-from his assets. The petition was contested by the Income-tax Officer and the Sales Tax Officer, Mathura, who, along with other creditors, are opposite parties to this appeal.

( 3 ) A date was fixed for the hearing of the petition, as provided under Section 24 of the Act, and the appellant examined himself in support of his case, in his statement the appellant admitted that he had not shown certain items of his properties in the list of assets gives in the petition. He categorically stated that he had omitted to show in his assets the number and the value of the 500 shares which he owned in the paid up capital of some Textile Mills, as also, a necklace of pearls consisting of 100 to 125 beads, whose weight or value he was unable to give before the Court. On being questioned he expressed his inability to give the details of the whereabouts of the texti











Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top