Allowed

Official Assignee v. S.Arjunlal Sunderdas

Madras HC26 Apr 2019APPLN/90/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application by the Official Assignee seeking a judgment and decree against the second respondent, Venku Reddy, to pay a debt of Rs. 65,00,000 owed to the insolvent. Court allowed the application and passed the decree under the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act based on evidence of the debt.

What did the court decide?

Directing the second respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 65,00,000 with interest at 18% p.a. from 23.12.2013 till date of realization with cost of recovery proceedings.

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

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

(IN INSOLVENCY)

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶5

AND

¶6

¶7

APPLN.NO.90 OF 2017

¶8

The Official Assignee, High Court, Madras ... Applicant -VS1.S.Arjunlal Sunderdas 23, Anderson Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 006. ... 1st Respondent / Insolvent 2.Venku Reddy, C/o.C.Gopal Reddy, III FLoor, New No.105, Old No.150, Habibullah Road, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Chennai 600 017.. ... 2^nd Respondent

¶9

¶10

Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be

¶11

pleased to direct the 2^nd respondent to pay a sum of Rs.65,00,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. from 23.12.2013

¶12

till date of realization with cost of the recovery proceedings.

¶13

This above application coming on this day before this court for hearing in the presence of Mr.K.V.Ananthakrushnan, advocate for the Official

¶14

Assignee of this Court, the applicant herein; the 2^nd respondent herein not appearing in person or by advocate and the 2^nd respondent having been set ex-parte on

¶15

06.07.2018; and upon reading the Judges Summon and Report of the Official Assignee filed herein and upon perusing the

¶16

evidence adduced herein and the exhibits marked thereon;

¶17

and this Court having observed that the Official assignee

¶18

had stated the second respondent had received a sum of Rs.65,00,000/- from the first respondent/insolvent Arjunlal Sunderdas, which was shown as due and outstanding as on 23.12.2013 and it was also stated that this amount was reflected in the accounts and there has been no subsequent transaction to prove discharge and

¶19

IT IS ORDERED :-

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ That the 2^nd respondent be and is hereby directed to

¶21

pay a sum of Rs.65,00,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. From

¶22

¶23

23.12.2013 till date of realization with cost of the

¶24

recovery proceedings.

¶25

WITNESS, THE HON'BLE SHRIMATI, VIJAYA KAMLESH
TAHILRAMANI, CHIEF JUSTICE, HIGH COURT AT MADRAS, AFORESAID
THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL 2019.
sd/-
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
Original Side – I
//CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE COPY//
DATED THIS THE DAY OF 2019
COURT OFFICER(OS)
From 25 th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing
certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this
format.

¶26

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

cns-29.04.2019

HIGH COURT, MADRAS

APPLN. No.90 OF 2017
IN
I.P.NO.25 of 2014
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE
G.JAYACHANDRAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
ORDER DATED: 26.04.2019
FOR APPROVAL: 29/04/2019
APPROVED ON : 29/04/2019
COPY TO:-
The Official Assignee,
High Court, Madras.

¶31

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶32

¶33

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶34

(IN INSOLVENCY)

¶35

FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL 2019

¶36

THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN

¶37

AND

¶38

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
APPLN.NO.90 OF 2017
IN
I.P. No.25 of 2014
In the matter of the Presidency
Towns Insolvency Act, III of 1909
and In the matter of
Arjunlal Sunderdas
...Debtor
I.P.NO.25 OF 2014
Smt.Chitra Desai
Residing at 3A-302, Oakland Park,
Yamuna Nagar, Lokhandwala Complex,
Andheri (West), Mumbai. ... Petitioning Creditor
-VS-
Mr.Arjunlal Sunderdas
23, Anderson Road, Nungambakkam,
Chennai-600 006. ... Respondent / Debtor
APPLN.NO.90 OF 2017
The Official Assignee,
High Court, Madras ... Applicant
-VS-
1.S.Arjunlal Sunderdas
23, Anderson Road, Nungambakkam,
Chennai-600 006. ... 1st Respondent /
Insolvent
2.Venku Reddy,
C/o.C.Gopal Reddy,
III FLoor, New No.105, Old No.150,
Habibullah Road,
Chennai 600 017.. ... 2 nd Respondent
Application praying that this Hon'ble Court be
pleased to direct the 2 nd respondent to pay a sum of
Rs.65,00,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. from 23.12.2013
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
till date of realization with cost of the recovery

¶39

¶40

proceedings.

¶41

This above application coming on this day before this court for hearing in the presence of Mr.K.V.Ananthakrushnan, advocate for the Official

¶42

Assignee of this Court, the applicant herein; the 2^nd respondent herein not appearing in person or by advocate and the 2^nd respondent having been set ex-parte on 06.07.2018; and upon reading the Judges Summon and Report of the Official Assignee filed herein and upon perusing the evidence adduced herein and the exhibits marked thereon; and

¶43

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER :-

¶44

This application had been filed by the Official Assignee seeking a Judgment and Decree against the second respondent, Venku Reddy, C/O. C.Gopal Reddy, III Floor, New No. 105, Old No. 150, Habibullah Road, Chennai – 600 017,

¶45

to pay a sum of Rs.65,00,000/- with interest at 18% p.a., from 23.12.2013 till date of realisation with cost of the recovery proceedings.

¶46

2. The Official Assignee had stated that the second respondent had received a sum of Rs. 65,00,000/- from the first respondent/insolvent Arjunlal Sunderdas, which was shown as due and outstanding as on 23.12.2013. It was also stated that this amount was reflected in the accounts. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶47

There has been no subsequent transaction to prove discharge.

¶48

¶49

The Official Assignee had issued notice calling upon the second respondent to pay the amount.

¶50

3. Notice was directed to the second respondent in

¶51

this application. Notice had been served. There is no representation on behalf of the second respondent and therefore, the second respondent was set ex-parte on 06.07.2018. Thereafter, the applicant was directed to take evidence.

¶52

4. Accordingly, R.Parameswari (P.W.1 ) filed proof

¶53

affidavit on behalf of the Official Assignee reiterating the averments made by the Official Assignee in support of the application and filed Exs. A-1 to A-5. Ex.A-1 is the true copy of the relevant pages of the Auditor Ranga Ramanujam Report dated 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2013; Ex.A-2 is the true

¶54

copy of relevant page in Auditor Annamalai Associate's

¶55

Report; Ex.A-3 is the True copy of relevant entries in

¶56

Schedule of Affairs (No.90) dated 24.05.2014; Ex.A-4 is the

¶57

true copy of Bank Statement; Ex.A-5 is the true copy of reply letter from City Union Bank dated 10.05.2018.

¶58

Thereafter, the first respondent namely, the insolvent, Arjunlal Sunderdas also appeared before the Court and filed

¶59

his proof affidavit and was examined as RW-1. He also confirmed that the second respondent had borrowed a sum of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Rs. 65,00,000/- on 23.12.2013, which amount was paid through

¶60

RTGS/Cheque. He affirmed that the second respondent had not

¶61

¶62

paid any amount towards discharge.

¶63

5. In view of the above evidence, this Application

¶64

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

¶65

¶66

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

cns-29.04.2019

HIGH COURT, MADRAS

APPLN. No.90 OF 2017

IN
I.P.NO.25 of 2014
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE
G.JAYACHANDRAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
ORDER DATED: 26.04.2019
FOR APPROVAL: 29/04/2019
APPROVED ON : 29/04/2019
COPY TO:-

¶72

The Official Assignee, High Court, Madras.

¶73

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Official Assignee v. S.Arjunlal Sunderdas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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 Assignee Vs S. Arjunlal Sunderdas

The Official Assigee Vs S.Arjunlal Sunderdas

Official Assignee Vs S.Arjunlal Sunderdas

The Official Assignee Vs Arjunlal Sunderdas

The Official Assignee Vs S. Arjunlal Sunderdas