Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.VELMURUGAN, J
Ravi – Appellant
Versus
R.Thangavel – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. debtor sold property to delay creditors. (Para 2 , 3 , 7) |
| 2. appellate court emphasized burden of proof on creditor. (Para 5 , 15 , 17 , 19) |
| 3. insolvency requires proof of debtor's status. (Para 12 , 14) |
| 4. final decision upheld dismissal of appeal. (Para 20) |
JUDGMENT
Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 12.06.2019 in C.M.A.No.11 of 2018 on the file of the Principal District Court, Namakkal, reversing the fair and decretal order dated 09.07.2018 in I.P.No.54 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Namakkal.
2. The first respondent herein (creditor) has filed I.P.No.54 of 2007 under Sections 6 and 9 of the Provincial Insolvency Act to adjudge the second respondent herein as an insolvent, stating as follows:
The second respondent herein borrowed Rs.1,40,000/- on 12.11.2005 from the first respondent-creditor, for his family expenses, urgent need and for his business and executed a Promissory Note agreeing to repay the amount with interest @ 18% per annum. Inspite of repeated demands, the second respondent herein had not repaid any amount either towards interest or principal amount. The second respondent, with a v
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
