Allowed

T.S.Muruganandam v. M/S.Haji Sattar & Sons

Madras HC12 Feb 2021IP/73/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court annulled adjudication orders against debtors after they repaid admitted insolvency claims. The insolvents deposited the claim amount with interest, leading to the closure of pending insolvency petitions and specific recovery applications.

What did the court decide?

Adjudication orders annulled; Injunction Petitions 73, 78, 87 of 2013 and IP No.14 of 2014 closed; Amount to insolvents disbursed; Interest granted to creditors.

T.S.Muruganandam Vs M/S.Haji Sattar & Sons — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IP.Nos. 73, 78 and 87 of 2013 and IP.No.14 of 2014 and Apln(IP) No.13,14, 15, 16,17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22of 2021 in IP.Nos.75, 60, 62,61, 49, 50, 71, 74, 105, 72 of 2013 and A.Nos. 256 to 259of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 12.02.2021

¶4

CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
IP.Nos. 73, 78 and 87 of 2013 and
IP.No.14 of 2014
and
Appln(IP) No.13,14, 15, 16,17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 of 2021
in
IP.Nos.75, 60, 62,61, 49, 50, 71, 74, 105, 72 of 2013
and
Appln.Nos. 256 to 259 of 2016
T. S. Muruganandam
... Petitioning Creditor in IP.No.73 of 2013
Suresh Kumar Surana, H.U.f.,
represented by its Manager and Kartha,
Suresh Kumar Surana
.. Petitioning Creditor in IP.No.78 of
2013
K. Balaji, H.U.F.,
represented by its Manager and Kartha, K. Balaji
... Petitioning Creditor in IP.No.87 of
1/10

¶5

http://www.judis.nic.in

2013

Rani R. Rughwani

... Petitioning Creditor in IP.No.14 of 2014

¶10

Vs
1. M/s. Haji Sattar & Sons
represented by its partners, Debtors 2 to 4
2. Siraj Ashraf
3. Akhtar Haji Sattar
4. Mrs. Yasmin Wahid
... Debtors in IP.Nos. 73, 78 and 87 of 2013 and
14 of 2014

¶11

Prayer in IP.No 73, 78 and 87 of 2013 and 14 of 2014: Petitions filed under Sections 9,10,11,12 and 13 of the Presidenship-towns Insolvency Act, III of 1909 and Order III-A of the Insolvency Rules, 1958 to

¶12

a) to treat the petitions as urgent

¶13

b) to adjudicate the debtors as an insolvents

¶14

c) to direct that the estate of the debtors be vested in the Official Assignee of Madras for the benefit of the general body of the creditors of the Debtors;

¶15

d) to order that the costs of this Petitions be paid by the Official Assignee of Madras from and out of the estate of the Debtors to the petitioning Creditors.

¶16

2/10

¶17

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶18

¶19

For Petitioning Creditors : Mr. T. Srikanth

¶20

For Debtors : M/s. Uma, OA
M/s. B. Satish Sundar
for 1 to 4
O R D E R
From the report of the Official Assignee, it is seen that the
respondents 1 to 4 had been adjudicated as insolvents on the basis of the
creditors petitions in IP.No.73 of 2013. The insolvents have been
adjudicated so, under various creditors petitions. The report would further
reveal that about 14 Insolvency petitions were yet to be adjudicated and
others had been closed by orders of this Court giving liberty to reopen the

¶21

same if the order of adjudication is stayed or set aside.

¶22

3/10

¶23

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶24

¶25

From the statement of the insolvents, which was recorded on

¶26

04.08.2015, the Official Assignee came to know about the property belonging to the 3^rd insolvent and also the fact that the 3^rd insolvent had alienated the property for a sum of Rs.1,79,25,000/- on 18.07.2012. This sale had taken place two years prior to the date of adjudication and as such the transaction became void. Steps were taken by the Official Assignee in A.Nos.256 to 259 of 2016 to set aside the sale as null and void. When these applications were posted before the Learned Master, the learned counsel for the insolvents submitted that they would attempt a settlement between the claimants and themselves. On 10.12.2018, the counsel appearing for the insolvents sought two weeks time to deposit a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- which was also deposited by them on 04.01.2019 by 5 demand drafts for Rs.5,00,000/- each. This amount was deposited by the Official Assignee into the fixed deposit with Indian Bank. When the matter came up on 18.03.2019, the learned counsel for the insolvents submitted that they were

¶27

4/10

¶28

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶29

¶30

ready to settle the creditors provided creditors were willing to receive the

¶31

decretal amount with cost and interest of only 5 per cent from the date of the

¶32

decree.

¶33

The claimants were directed to file their affidavits making a claim before the Official Assignee. The claimants had also filed their affidavits.

¶34

In all, the Official Assignee had received 36 claim petitions for a

¶35

sum of Rs. 1,36,96,895/-, out of which two claims were dismissed, stating that they were a duplication. Finally 34 claims were taken up for enquiry and admitted. The claimants were admitted to the tune of Rs.1,21,91,886/-. All the claimants had independently remitted 3.5 % Government Commission on

¶36

the admitted claim amount. As promised, the counsel for the insolvents had remitted the claim amount and the same was invested in fixed deposit and to pay the Government Commission, one of the fixed deposits of

¶37

5/10

¶38

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶39

¶40

Rs.25,00,000/- was pre closed. As on date, the Fixed Deposit receipts have

¶41

been closed and a sum of Rs.1, 24,38,715/- is available towards maturity

¶42

value.

¶43

The learned Official Assignee would submit that after keeping aside the amounts due to the 34 proved unsecured creditors and other expenses, a sum of Rs.5,35,915/- is available to the credit of the estate.

¶44

Taking note of the report of the Official Assignee, it is clear that the insolvents have cleared the entire amount due towards the claims and a sum of Rs.5,35,915/- is available to the credit of the estate. In these circumstances the adjudication order granted against the applicants/insolvents stand annulled. Consequently, I.P.Nos.78 & 87 of 2013 and I.P.No.14 of 2014 are closed.

¶45

6/10

¶46

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶47

¶48

It is also reported by the learned counsel appearing for the

¶49

petitioning creditors and admitted by the Official Assignee that 3.5 % has

¶50

been paid by the petitioning creditors of their share of the Government

¶51

Commission on 25.08.2020.

¶52

STATEMENT SHOWING 5% INTEREST ON THE PRINCIPAL VALUE OF 34 CLAIMS FOR THE PERIOD FROM 25.08.2020 TO 31.01.2020

¶53

Sl. Principal No.of
No. Claim No. Value From date To date Days Interest Total R/f
1 79of 2016 100,000 8/25/2020 1/31/2021 159 5% 2,178.08 2,178.00
2 80 of 2016 100,000 8/25/2020 1/31/2021 159 5% 2,178.08 2,178.00
3 81 of 2016 300,000 8/25/2020 1/31/2021 159 5% 6,534.25 6,534.00
4 82 of 2016 100,000 8/25/2020 1/31/2021 159 5% 2,178.08 2,178.00
5 83 of 2016 100,000 8/25/2020 1/31/2021 159 5% 2,178.08 2,178.00
6 84 of 2016 100,000 8/25/2020 1/31/2021 159 5% 2,178.08 2,178.00
7 85 of 2016 50,000 8/25/2020 1/31/2021 159 5% 1,089.04 1,089.00
8 86 of 2016 200,000 8/25/2020 1/31/2021 159 5% 4,356.16 4,356.00
9 87 of 2016 600,000 8/25/2020 1/31/2021 159 5% 13,068.49 13,068.00
10 88 of 2016 200,000 8/25/2020 1/31/2021 159 5% 4,356.16 4,356.00
11 89 of 2016 100,000 8/25/2020 1/31/2021 159 5% 2,178.08 2,178.00
12 90 of 2016 100,000 8/25/2020 1/31/2021 159 5% 2,178.08 2,178.00
13 91 of 2016 200,000 8/25/2020 1/31/2021 159 5% 4,356.16 4,356.00
14 92 of 2016 100,000 8/25/2020 1/31/2021 159 5% 2,178.08 2,178.00

¶54

7/10

¶55

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶56

			*Apln(* *IP.*	*IP) No.13,14* *Nos.75, 60,*	*IP.Nos. 73, 78* *, 15, 16,17, 18, 1* *62,61, 49, 50, 71,* *A.No*	*and 87 of 2013 and* *IP.No.14 of 2014* *and* *9, 20, 21, 22of 2021* in *74, 105, 72 of 2013* *and* *s. 256 to 259of 2016*
15	93 of 2016 200,000	8/25/2020	1/31/2021	159	5%	4,356.16	4,356.00
16	96 of 2016 50,000	8/25/2020	1/31/2021	159	5%	1,089.04	1,089.00
17	97 of 2016 50,000	8/25/2020	1/31/2021	159	5%	1,089.04	1,089.00
18	98 of 2016 150,000	8/25/2020	1/31/2021	159	5%	3,267.12	3,267.00
19	99 of 2016 100,000	8/25/2020	1/31/2021	159	5%	2,178.08	2,178.00
20	100 of 2016 150,000	8/25/2020	1/31/2021	159	5%	3,267.12	3,267.00
21	^{4 / 2019} Dismissed	8/25/2020	1/31/2021	159	5%	-	-
22	^{5 of 2019} Dimissed	8/25/2020	1/31/2021	159	5%	-	-
23	6 of 2019 900,000	8/25/2020	1/31/2021	159	5%	19,602.74	19,603.00
24	7 of 2019 500,000	8/25/2020	1/31/2021	159	5%	10,890.41	10,890.00
25	8 of 2019 400,000	8/25/2020	1/31/2021	159	5%	8,712.33	8,712.00
26	9 of 2019 400,000	8/25/2020	1/31/2021	159	5%	8,712.33	8,712.00
27	10 of 2019 100,000	8/25/2020	1/31/2021	159	5%	2,178.08	2,178.00
28	11 of 2019 100,000	8/25/2020	1/31/2021	159	5%	2,178.08	2,178.00
29	22 of 2019 100,000	8/25/2020	1/31/2021	159	5%	2,178.08	2,178.00
30	23 of 2019 100,000	8/25/2020	1/31/2021	159	5%	2,178.08	2,178.00
31	24 of 2019 100,000	8/25/2020	1/31/2021	159	5%	2,178.08	2,178.00
32	25 of 2019 100,000	8/25/2020	1/31/2021	159	5%	2,178.08	2,178.00
33	26 of 2019 900,000	8/25/2020	1/31/2021	159	5%	19,602.74	19,603.00
34	27 of 2019 900,000	8/25/2020	1/31/2021	159	5%	19,602.74	19,603.00
35	75 of 2019 50,000	8/25/2020	1/31/2021	159	5%	1,089.04	1,089.00
36	2195 of 2019 200,000	8/25/2020	1/31/2021	159	5%	4,356.16	4,356.00
Tot	al					172,068.49	172,065.00

¶57

Considering the above fact, this Court feels that the petitioning

¶58

creditors in addition to the sum of Rs.1,21,91,886/- are also entitled to the

¶59

8/10

¶60

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶61

¶62

interest on the principal value calculated from 25.08.2020 to 31.01.2021 at 5% which is morefully detailed herein. The remaining amount shall be disbursed to the insolvent.

¶63

In view of the above order, A.Nos.256 to 259 of 2016 are closed.
12.02.2021
mrn
P.T.ASHA, J.

¶64

9/10

¶65

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶66

IP.Nos. 73, 78 and 87 of 2013 and
IP.No.14 of 2014
and
Apln(IP) No.13,14, 15, 16,17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22of 2021
in
IP.Nos.75, 60, 62,61, 49, 50, 71, 74, 105, 72 of 2013
and
A.Nos. 256 to 259of 2016

¶67

mrn
IP.Nos. 73, 78 and 87 of 2013 and
IP.No.14 of 2014
and
Apln(IP) No.13,14, 15, 16,17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22of 2021
in
IP.Nos.75, 60, 62,61, 49, 50, 71, 74, 105, 72 of 2013
and
A.Nos. 256 to 259 of 2016
12.02.2021

¶68

10/10

¶69

http://www.judis.nic.in

T.S.Muruganandam v. M/S.Haji Sattar & Sons

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.S.Muruganandam v. M/S.Haji Sattar & Sons

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

S R Jangid IPS Vs Nagaimugan

Will of E.K.Pattabirama Vs P.Saraswathi Ammal

M/s.Edac Engineering Limited, Rep. by its Legal Officer Mr.v.Balaji Pathak, Vs M/s. Kirloskar Corrocoat Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Company Secretary Mr.AnujaLatukar

Microsoft Corp Vs Vikram Redlapalli

Sri Vari Enterprises Vs M/S.Haji Sattar & Sons

Mr.K.Udayakumar Vs Mr.Syed Ahmed M.