Allowed

The Official Assignee v. S. Arjunlal Sunderdas

Madras HC12 Jul 2019APPLN/239/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court, on evidence that the respondent received Rs. 30,00,000 from an insolvent and failed to discharge the debt, allowed the applicant's application for a judgment and decree for recovery of the sum with interest.

What did the court decide?

Decree passed against the second respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. from 21.04.2014 till realization, along with costs of recovery proceedings.

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

¶1

¶2

RESERVED ON: 28.06.2019

¶3

DATED: 12.07.2019

¶4

Appln.(IP)No. 239 of 2016 in I.P. No. 25 of 2014

¶5

Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J. &

¶6

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

¶7

This application had been filed by the Official Assignee seeking a Judgment and Decree against the second respondent, Sixth Sense, Barnas International, Valliammal Road, Vepery, Chennai - 600007, to pay a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- with interest at 18% p.a., from 21.04.2014 till date of realisation with cost of the recovery proceedings.

¶8

2. The Official Assignee had stated that the second respondent had received a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- 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.

¶9

3. Notice was directed to the second respondent in this application. Notice had been returned as unserved. Hence, substitute of service by way of paper publication was effected on 31.01.2018 pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 25.01.2018 and the second respondent was set ex-parte on 14.02.2018. Thereafter, the http://www.judis.nic.in

¶10

¶11

applicant was directed to take evidence.

¶12

4. Accordingly, A.S.Velumani, Sub Assistant Registrar attached to the office of the Official Assignee, High Court, Madras, filed proof affidavit and was examined as PW-1. He filed Exs. A-1 to A-5. Ex.A-1 is the true copy of relevant pages in the Auditor Ranga Ramanujam's Report dated 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2014; Ex.A-2 is the true copy of the relevant page in Auditor Annamalai Associates's Report; Ex.A-3 is the true copy of the notice dated 16.03.2016 sent by the

¶13

Official Assignee along with copy of acknowledgment; Ex.A-4 is the true copy of the relevant entries in schedule of affairs (No.77) filed in the Court dated 24.05.2014. Thereafter, the first respondent namely, the insolvent, Arjunlal Sunderdas also appeared before the Court and filed his proof affidavit and was examined as RW-1. He also confirmed that the second respondent had borrowed a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- on 21.04.2014. He affirmed that the second respondent had not paid any amount towards discharge.

¶14

5. In view of the above evidence, this Application is allowed

¶15

and a decree is passed accordingly against the second respondent as prayed for.

¶16

vsg

¶17

Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J. &

¶18

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶19

¶20

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

¶21

vsg

¶22

Pre-Delivery Order made in
Appln.(IP)No. 239 of 2016
in
I.P. No. 25 of 2014

¶23

12.07.2019

¶24

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶25

¶26

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶27

¶28

http://www.judis.nic.in

The Official Assignee v. S. Arjunlal Sunderdas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Official Assignee 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

Statutes considered

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 Arjunlal Sunderdas

The Official Assignee Vs Arjunlal Sunderdas

The Official Assigee Vs S.Arjunlal Sunderdas