D.Venkateswara Rao Vs
Case brief
What is this about?
HIGH COURT, MADRAS. A.No.58,59,61 and 62 of…
A compact analysis
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.
BEFORE THE MASTER, HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
A.No.58,59,61 and 62 of 2023
in I.P.No.65 of 2013
DATE : 13.03.2025 TIME: 02.35 P.M
Evidence of Mrs.S.Sujatha, P.W.1, W/o.G.Raghunathan, aged about 49 years,
working as Section Officer, Office of the Official Assignee, High Court, Chennai.
Cross Examination by Mr.P.Muthusamy, (Enrl.No.970/1997), Counsel for the 2nd Respondent.
SOLEMNLY AFFIRMED :
It is correct to say that the petition mentioned property was sold two and half months
prior to the adjudication of the Insolvent. The Insolvent has not disclosed about this property in this petition. I have to verify whether he stated the same in the schedule of affairs. The Insolvent has stated about the sale of the property in his sworn statement. It is correct to say the sale was effected in 2013. It is correct to state that valuer was appointed only in 2014 to value the property. It is correct to state that all these 4 applications were taken only in the year 2016. It is correct to state that the applications
Coram
Master
High Court, Madras
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court