The court allowed an ex-parte insolvency petition filed by creditors against debtors who failed to pay decretal amounts derived from two summary suits. The debtors did not appear or respond to the petition despite service by publication.
Insolvency petition allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b); proceeding ordered accordingly.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
IN ITS INSOLVENCY JURISDICTION
PETITION NO.93 OF 2006
RE: Raj Kumar Govil & Ors. ...Debtors
EX-PARTE :
Sicom Ltd. ...Ptg.Creditors
None for Debtors.
Mr.G.R.Mehta for Petitioning Creditors.
CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.
NOVEMBER 20, 2007.
P.C.
1. The present Petition is founded on the two
separate decrees passed in favour of the
Petitioning Creditors and against the debtors. The
first decree was passed on 3rd October 2001 in
Summary Suit No.4760 of 1997, whereas, the second
decree was passed on 9th October 2001 in Summary
Suit No.4759 of 1997. As the debtors failed to pay
the amount, two separate Insolvency Notices were
issued by the Petitioning Creditors being
Insolvency Notice Nos.N/246 of 2005 and N/247 of
: 2 :
2005 respectively on 17th December 2005. Both
these notices were duly served on the debtors on
21st July 2006. Inspite of service of notices,
debtors failed to pay the decretal amount. As a
result, the act of insolvency was completed on 28th
August 2006.
2. As the debtors failed to pay the amount,
the Petitioning Creditor has approached this Court
by way of present Petition on 27th September 2006.
Service of present Petition was required to be
effected on the debtors by publication which was
done on 14th March 2007. Inspite of service, none
of the debtors have chosen to appear, nor filed any
reply.
3. No explanation is offered on behalf of the
debtors regarding non-payment of the decretal
amount so far. As a result, the Petition deserves
to be allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and
(b).
. Ordered accordingly.
: 3 :
A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to allow the insolvency petition against debtors who failed to pay decretal amounts and did not appear in response to notices.
Sicom Ltd.
A.M.KHANWILKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court