Dismissed

M/S. Sanskar Gem Pvt. Ltd., v. Raj Kantilal Shah

Bombay HC5 Nov 2019NMIS/11/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Debtor sought to set aside insolvency notice, claiming inability to pay decree amount despite ownership of Surat property. Court dismissed notice, noting lack of satisfaction regarding asset values and offering deposit as alternative.

What did the court decide?

Notice of Motion dismissed; Judgment Debtor allowed to deposit decretal amount with Prothonotary to discharge notice.

M/S. Sanskar Gem Pvt. Ltd., Vs Raj Kantilal Shah — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

960 NMIS 11 OF 2019.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN INSOLVENCY NOTICE OF MOTION NO.11 OF 2019 IN

¶3

INSOLVENCY NOTICE NO.N/25 OF 2018

¶4

Re :
Raj Kantilal Shah

¶5

… Applicant/Debtor

¶6

Ex-Parte :
M/s. Sanskar Gem Pvt. Ltd. …Petitioning Creditor

¶7

Mr. Farhan Khan with Mr. Rubin Vakil, Mr. Manish Doshi i/by Vimadalal and Co., for
Petitioning Creditor.

¶8

Mr. Sunil Kadam, for Debtor.

¶9

CORAM: S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATE: 5th NOVEMBER, 2019

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

1. The above Notice of Motion is taken out by the Applicant/Judgment Debtor for setting aside the Insolvency Notice No.N/28 of 2018 dated 16th October, 2018

¶12

taken out by the Petitioning Creditor. Affidavit in support is filed by the
Applicant/Judgment Debtor.

¶13

2.The Petitioning Creditor has taken out the above Insolvency Notice
pursuant to a consent decree dated 9th February, 2017 passed by this Court in

¶14

Summary Suit No.657 of 2016.

¶15

3. From the perusal of the Affidavit in support of the Insolvency Notice, it appears that the Applicant is not disputing the consent decree dated 9^th February, 2017

¶16

passed by this Court. However, due to financial problems, he is not in a position to

¶17

ssp

¶18

1/2

¶19

960 NMIS 11 OF 2019.odt

¶20

pay the decretal amount to the Petitioning Creditor. He submits that he owns
properties at Surat which have a market value of Rs.10 to 12 Crores. He further
submits that he is in the process of selling/disposing off his properties and the sale
proceeds thereof, would be utilized towards full and final satisfaction of the decretal
amount of the Petitioning Creditor. He submits that if the Applicant is declared as
Insolvent, no purpose would be served.

¶21

4.On the last date of hearing, the learned Advocate for the Applicant/Debtor
had stated that the matter between the parties would be settled. The decree in the
Summary Suit is of the year 2017. The judgment debtor is not even in a position to
pay the decretal amount. I am not satisfied that the judgment debtor has assets which
have a market value of Rs.10 to 12 Crores. In any event, the Judgment Debtor himself
states that it is not possible to find a purchaser to buy the said property. In view
thereof, I am not inclined to entertain the above Notice of Motion. However, it is
open to the judgment debtor to deposit the decretal amount with the Prothonotary and
Senior Master, High Court, Bombay and take such steps thereafter, for discharge of
this Notice. The Notice of Motion is therefore, dismissed.

¶22

( S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. )

¶23

2/2

¶24

ssp

M/S. Sanskar Gem Pvt. Ltd., v. Raj Kantilal Shah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Sanskar Gem Pvt. Ltd., v. Raj Kantilal Shah

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

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

Mr.Bhanudas Eknath Jadhav Vs Mrs.Saraswati Rochiram Jagwani