Allowed

M/S. Ravi Steel Industries v. Narayanlal Jodhaji Choudhary

Bombay HC15 Jan 2013INPT/11/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Insolvency Petition 11/2012, Bombay High Court made the petition absolute against the debtor. The court rejected repeated requests for adjournments by the absent debtor's counsel, noting the act of insolvency was complete and citing lack of efforts to set aside an ex parte decree.

What did the court decide?

Petition for insolvency made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). Costs to be quantified as per rules.

M/S. Ravi Steel Industries Vs Narayanlal Jodhaji… — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | Bombay HC (2013)

INPT 11/2012

1/3

S.H.HADAP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

INSOLVENCY PETITION NO.11 OF 2012

¶6

M/s.Ravi Steel Industries V/s. Narayanlal Jodhaji Choudhary

¶7

.. Petitioning Creditor

¶8

.. Debtor

¶9

Mr.Angre i/by Mr.Girish B.Kedia for the petitioning creditor. Mr.T.R.Yadav for Debtor.

¶10

CORAM: N.M.JAMDAR, J. Date : 15^th January, 2013

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

By this petition the petitioning creditor prays that the order of adjudication be made against the Respondent Debtor.

¶13

The petition has been filed on the basis of an order and decree passed on 28^th April 2011 in a summary suit No.2377 of 2009. Since the amount was not paid by the debtor, notice was issued against the debtor and it was duly served on the debtor on 19^th March 2012.

¶14

As per the notice the debtor was required to pay the petitioning creditor or to take out proceedings to set aside the notice within 35 days after the service of notice on 19^th March 2012. Since the debtor failed to take either of these steps, the debtor committed an act of insolvency on 24^th April 2012.

¶15

INPT 11/2012

¶16

2/3

¶17

On 4^th December 2012 when the matter came on board it was noted that though the reply is filed on behalf of debtor, the learned counsel appearing for the debtor has not filed vakalatnama and that the learned counsel for the debtor was not present. The matter was adjourned to 18^th December 2012.

¶18

On 18^th December 2012 submission of the learned counsel for the petitioning creditor that the act of insolvency is complete and the petition be made absolute was noted. However, the request of the learned counsel for the debtor for adjournment was granted and the matter was adjourned till today. It was made clear that the request for adjournment was acceded to only by way of indulgence and no further time will be given to the respondent debtor.

¶19

Today when the matter is called out, again request is made for simplicitor adjournment on behalf of the respondent debtor.

¶20

Perused the reply filed by the respondent debtor in which the only ground that is taken is that a notice of motion has been taken out for setting aside the exparte decree dated 28^th April 2011. The reply does not state as to what steps the judgment debtor has taken to get the decree set aside or stayed. It was for this reason, even though the learned counsel for petitioning creditor had contended that the act of insolvency was complete, by way of indulgence the matter was adjourned till today.

¶21

Today also the learned counsel for the respondent debtor is

¶22

3/3 INPT 11/2012

¶23

not in a position to state as to whether the exparte order is set aside or stayed. It is clear that the adjournments are being sought only for prolonging the matter.

¶24

As the act of insolvency is already complete, no further indulgence can be shown to the respondent debtor. Accordingly petition is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). Costs to be quantified as per rules.

¶25

(N.M.JAMDAR, J.)

M/S. Ravi Steel Industries v. Narayanlal Jodhaji Choudhary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Ravi Steel Industries v. Narayanlal Jodhaji Choudhary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tata Petrodyne Limited Vs

Tata Petrodyne Limited Vs

Dakshin Media Gaming Solutions Private Limited Vs

Ashok M. Bajaj Vs Chintan K. Shah

Mrs. Shukla Ramlubhya Mehra Vs Official Liquidator of M/S. Polynit Pvt. Limited (in Liqn.)

Lee and Muirhead Private Limited Vs Samruddha Resources Ltd, - U51900MH1997PLC112284