The High Court dismissed the petitioner's insolvency petition due to default in appearing before the Insolvency Registrar and failure to deposit advertising charges under Rule 84A, indicating the petitioner was not interested.
Petition dismissed on account of default.
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.
5-INPTL-36-2018.DOC
jsn
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INSOLVENCY PETITION (L) NO.36 OF 2018
Sudhir Joshi
… Debtor / Petitioner
None present.
Mr. S.R. Paranjpe, Insolvency Registrar is present.
CORAM: R. I. CHAGLA, J. DATE: 17TH SEPTEMBER, 2019
PC:-
has failed to appear before the Insolvency Registrar and has failed to deposit the advertising charges of Rs.15,000/- under Rule 84A of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Rules, 1909. It appears that the debtor is not interested in pursuing Insolvency Petition.
of default.
( R I. CHAGLA, J. )
1/1
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an Insolvency Petition should be dismissed for default in appearing and depositing advertising charges.
Whether lack of petitioner's appearance indicates lack of interest in pursuing the petition.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sudhir Joshi
R. I. Chagla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court