Allowed

Mr.Bhanudas Eknath Jadhav v. Mrs.Saraswati Rochiram Jagwani

Bombay HC5 Nov 2019INPT/32/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an ex-parte application for bankruptcy, the court considered the uncontroverted evidence of the petitioning creditor establishing an act of insolvency through suspension of payments via a reply to a notice. The petition was disposed of allowing adjudication against the debtor and costs.

What did the court decide?

Order of adjudication against the debtor and costs of the petition granted.

Mr.Bhanudas Eknath Jadhav Vs Mrs.Saraswati Rochiram… — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

949 inpt 32 of 2018.odt

¶2

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

¶3

INSOLVENCY PETITION NO.32 OF 2018

¶4

Re :

¶5

Saraswati Rochiram Jagwani

¶6

…Debtor

¶7

Ex-Parte :
Bhanudas Eknath Jadhav

¶8

…
Petitioning Creditor

¶9

Mr. A.S.Mishra, for Petitioning Creditor.

¶10

CORAM: S.J. KATHAWALLA, J.

¶11

DATE: 5th NOVEMBER, 2019

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

1.By the above Petition, the Petitioning Creditor has prayed for an order of
adjudication against the debtors mentioned above.

¶14

2.According to the Petitioning Creditor, he had advanced an amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- to the debtor on the condition that he would return the said amount
within three months from the date of advance @ 18% p.a. The debtor had also
executed a Bill of Exchange dated 20th April, 2018 for the said amount in favour of the
Petitioning Creditor. Since the debtor has failed and neglected to pay the said amount
with interest accrued thereon to the Petitioning Creditor, the Petitioning Creditor
through his Advocate sent a notice dated 25th July, 2018 calling upon the debtor to pay

¶15

the amount covered under the Bill of Exchange dated 20th April, 2018. The Debtor

¶16

has received the said notice and sent a reply letter dated 30th July, 2018, which is

¶17

1/3

¶18

ssp

¶19

949 inpt 32 of 2018.odt

¶20

reproduced hereunder :

¶21

“We refer to your letter – cum – notice dated 25th July, 2018 issued on

¶22

behalf of Mr. Bhanudas Eknath Jadhav.

¶23

In connection with the same, we hereby inform you that due to fnancial
crisis our business is stopped and no productive activities are going on.

¶24

Due to closure of our said business we are sufering more fnancially and
hence, we are unable to pay to our creditors. We therefore, suspended the
payments of all the claimants/creditors, which please take note of the same
and inform your client accordingly.”

¶25

3.In view thereof, since the debtor has suspended the payment under the bill
of exchange, the debtor thereby committed an act of insolvency on 30th July, 2018.
The Petitioning Creditor therefore, took out the present Insolvency Petition on 24th
September, 2018 for an order of adjudication against the Debtors mentioned above.

¶26

4.The above Insolvency Petition has been duly served upon the judgment
debtor and Afdavit proving service thereof dated 8th October, 2018is on record.
However, the debtor is absent today and has not fled any Afdavit in Reply thereto.
Hence, the facts narrated on behalf of the Petitioning Creditor and the submissions

¶27

made before the Court on his behalf have remained uncontroverted. In the
circumstances, the Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) which are

¶28

2/3

¶29

ssp

¶30

949 inpt 32 of 2018.odt

¶31

reproduced hereunder :

¶32

“(a)An order of adjudication may be made by this Hon’ble Court against the Debtor abovenamed;

¶33

(b)For cost of this Petition and incidental and consequential thereto;”

¶34

5. The Insolvency Petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶35

( S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. )

¶36

3/3

¶37

ssp

Mr.Bhanudas Eknath Jadhav v. Mrs.Saraswati Rochiram Jagwani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.Bhanudas Eknath Jadhav v. Mrs.Saraswati Rochiram Jagwani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vanita Baliiram Patil Vs Smt.Nagarbai Vasudeo Patil

Vanita Baliiram Patil Vs Smt.Nagarbai Vasudeo Patil

Vanita Baliiram Patil Vs Smt.Nagarbai Vasudeo Patil

M/S. Otarmal Kantilal and Co., Vs Maya Pankaj Patel and Bharti K. Joshi

Smt.Sushila C. Mehta Vs D. G.Joshi and Ms.Neha B. Vakani, Applicant

M/S. Lilaram Ramandas and Sons. Vs Ashok Amritlal Parekh Prop. of M/S. A.P. Enterprises.