Allowed

The Official Assigee v. S.Arjunlal Sunderdas

Madras HC15 Nov 2019APPLN/103/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed an application by the Official Assignee seeking a decree against the second respondent to pay Rs.50 lakhs to the insolvent estate. The applicant proved receipt of funds via affidavit and auditor reports; substituted service was effected due to failure to serve personal notice. Justice Jayachandran and Justice Karthikeyan permitted the decree.

What did the court decide?

Decree was passed against the second respondent to pay Rs.50,00,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. from 13.03.2013 till realization, plus costs of recovery proceedings.

The Official Assigee Vs S.Arjunlal Sunderdas — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

Appln.(IP)No. 103 of 2016 in

¶3

I.P. No. 25 of 2014

¶4

Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J. & C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

¶5

This application had been filed by the Official Assignee seeking a Judgment and Decree against the second respondent, V.Vijayakumar, to pay a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- with interest at 18% p.a., from 13.03.2013 till date of realisation with cost of the recovery proceedings.

¶6

2. The Official Assignee had stated that the second respondent had received a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- from the first respondent/insolvent Arjunlal Sunderdas, which was shown as due and outstanding as on 21.04.2014. It was also stated that this amount was reflected in the accounts. There has been no subsequent transaction to prove discharge. The Official Assignee had issued notice calling upon the second respondent to pay the amount.

¶7

3. Notice was directed to the second respondent in this application. Notice had been returned as unserved. Hence, substituted service by way of paper publication was effected on 08.08.2019. There was no representation for the second respondent and therefore, the second respondent was set exparte on 29.08.2019. Thereafter, the applicant was directed to take evidence.

¶8

4. Accordingly, P.Mangaiyarkkarasi, Assistant Section Officer attached to the Office of the Official Assignee, Madras High Court filed proof affidavit and was examined as PW-1 and she reiterated the claim for

¶9

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶10

¶11

Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J. & C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

¶12

vsg

¶13

Rs.50,00,000/- and to establish the claim filed Exs. A-1 – A-4. Ex.A-1 is the true copy of the relevant pages from Auditor Ranga Ramanujam Report; Ex.A-2 is the true copy of the relevant page in Auditor Annamalai Associates Report; Ex.A-3 is the true copy of the relevant entries in schedule of affairs dated 30.10.2015; and Ex.A-4 is the true copy of the bank statement from 01.01.2013 to 01.07.2013.

¶14

5. The first respondent namely, the insolvent, Arjunlal Sunderdas reportedly died on 07.05.2018.

¶15

6. In view of the above evidence, this Application is allowed and a decree is passed accordingly against the second respondent as prayed for.

¶16

vsg (Dr.G.J.J.,) (C.V.K.J.,) 15.11.2019

¶17

Pre-delivery Judgment made in Appln.(IP)No. 103 of 2016 in I.P. No. 25 of 2014

¶18

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶19

¶20

Pre-delivery Judgment made in Appln.(IP)No. 103 of 2016 in I.P. No. 25 of 2014

¶21

.11.2019

¶22

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶23

¶24

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶25

¶26

http://www.judis.nic.in

The Official Assigee v. S.Arjunlal Sunderdas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Official Assigee v. S.Arjunlal Sunderdas

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

The Official Assignee Vs S Arjunlal Sunderdas

The Official Assigee Vs S.Arjunlal Sunderdas

The Official Assigee Vs S.Arjunlal Sunderdas

The Official Assignee Vs S. Arjunlal Sunderdas

The Official Assignee Vs S Arjunlal Sunderdas

The Official Assignee Vs S Arjunlal Sunderdas