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

2022 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 76764

MADRAS HIGH COURT
K.Ramachandran, S/o. Late R.Kailasam, – Appellant
Versus
The Official Liquidator, High Court – Respondent
COMP.A/138/2022



Comp.A.No.138 of 2022

in C.P.No.73 of 2000

Comp.A.No.138 of 2022

in

C.P.No.73 of 2000

M.SUNDAR, J

Captioned application has been taken out with a prayer for

'Condonation of Delay' ['COD'] qua filing of Form 66.

2. Ms.K.Jamuna, learned counsel for applicant and Mr.Bavisetty

Sridhar, learned 'Deputy Official Liquidator' ('Dy.OL' for the sake of brevity)

on behalf of the respondent (Official Liquidator) are before this Court.

3. The defects in the proof of debt came to the knowledge of the

applicant only recently and that has been cited as one of the reasons for the

COD prayer.

4. However, learned Dy. OL fairly submits that he has no serious

opposition or objections to the COD prayer.

Page:1/2

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Comp.A.No.138 of 2022

in C.P.No.73 of 2000

M.SUNDAR, J

gpa/nsa

5. Therefore captioned application ordered as prayed for i.e., delay

condoned subject to the condition that the applicant shall submit his Form 66

along with original supporting documents in the Office of the Official

Liquidator within a fortnight from today i.e., on or before 13.05.2022.

6. Captioned Application ordered as above. There shall be no order as to

costs.

29.04.2022

gpa/nsa

Comp.A.No.138 of 2022

in

C.P.No.73 of 2000

Page:2/2

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top