Disposed

Mr.M.Muruganandham v. Mr.B.Subramanyam Reddy

Madras HC9 Jan 2025A/8/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Insolvents sought annulment of their 2010 adjudication, offering to settle creditor dues. Court held annulment could not be granted at this stage since 6% interest under Insolvency Rules remained payable; directed applicants to deposit Rs.72,56,400 within three weeks, failing which the application stands automatically dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Applicants permitted to deposit Rs.72,56,400/- to the credit of I.P. No.94 of 2010 favouring the Official Assignee within three weeks; matter posted for reporting settlement.

Mr.M.Muruganandham Vs Mr.B.Subramanyam Reddy — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

Appln. No.8 of 2025

¶2

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 14.07.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

¶6

Appln. No.8 of 2025 in

¶7

I.P. No.94 of 2010

¶8

S.M. Maria Dorch

¶9

Mrs. Annie Medona

¶10

... Applicants

¶11

vs.

¶12

The Official Assignee High Court of Madras

¶13

... Respondent

¶14

For Applicants : Mr.Sharath Chandran For Respondent : Ms.Janani for Ms.C.B. Meena, Official Assignee

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Appln. No.8 of 2025 has been filed by the insolvents seeking to

¶17

annul the order of adjudication, dated 21.10.2010 passed by this Court in

¶18

I.P. No.94 of 2010.

¶19

Under the aforesaid order, the applicants were declared as insolvents. The applicants are now willing to settle the dues of all the Creditors. Their claims have been adjudicated by the Official Assignee.

¶20

1/5

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

Appln. No.8 of 2025

¶23

In the report of the Official Assignee, dated 14.03.2025, the Official Assignee, in paragraph No.5 has stated that as per the Schedule of Affairs filed by the insolvents(applicants herein), 27 claims were filed before the Official Assignee for a sum of Rs.2,21,11,989/- and the Official Assignee has admitted 25 claims for a sum of Rs.1,34,56,400/and has rejected certain claims, which are reflected in the report of the Official Assignee, pursuant to order passed by this Court on 09.08.2021.

¶24

The Official Assignee has also stated that the Estate has collected a sum of Rs.62 lakhs. Therefore, the insolvents (applicants herein) have to pay a balance sum of Rs.72,56,400/- to seek for a discharge. The applicants (insolvents) are willing to pay the balance sum of Rs.72,56,400/- as seen from the affidavit filed in support of Appln. No.8 of 2025. Even though the applicants in Appln. No.8 of 2025 seek for annulment of the order of adjudication, dated 21.10.2010 passed by this Court in I.P. No.94 of 2010, the learned counsel for the applicants would now submit that for the present, it would suffice, if a direction is issued by this Court permitting the applicants to deposit a sum of Rs.72,56,400/- to the credit of I.P. No.94 of 2010 favouring the Official Assignee and thereafter seek for discharge.

¶25

2/5

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

Appln. No.8 of 2025

¶28

The learned counsel for the Official Assignee would also submit

¶29

that apart from the adjudicated amount determined by the Official Assignee in respect of all the Creditors, as per the provisions of Insolvency Rules, 6% interest is also liable to be paid to the Creditors. However, she would also submit that once the said sum is deposited by the insolvents as undertaken in the affidavit filed in support of Appln. No.8 of 2025 and if the Creditors agree to receive the respective payments without any further interest viz., 6% p.a., which is as per the Insolvency rules, the prayer for annulment of insolvency sought for in Appln. No.8 of 2025 can be considered by this Court. When the rules stipulate that interest at 6%p.a. is payable on the determined amount, at this stage, the order of adjudication, dated 21.10.2010 passed against the applicants cannot be annulled. Only on deposit of the determined amount of Rs.72,56,400/- by the applicants to the credit of I.P. No.94 of 2010 and if the Creditors who have made a claim over the Estate of the insolvents agree to receive their respective payments without any further interest, i.e., 6% as per the insolvency rules, this Court can consider annulling the order of adjudication, dated 21.10.2010 passed in I.P. No.94 of 2010.

¶30

3/5

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

Appln. No.8 of 2025

¶33

However, for the present, this Court directs the applicants to

¶34

deposit a sum of Rs.72,56,400/- (Rupees seventy two lakhs fifty six thousand and four hundred) to the credit of I.P. No.94 of 2010 favouring the Official Assignee, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, this application viz., Appln. No.8 of 2025 shall stand automatically dismissed.

¶35

Post the matter “for reporting settlement” on 04.08.2025.

14.07.2025

vsi2

4/5

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

Appln. No.8 of 2025

¶41

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

¶42

vsi2

¶43

Appln. No.8 of 2025 and I.P. No.94 of 2010

¶44

14.07.2025

¶45

5/5

¶46

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Mr.M.Muruganandham v. Mr.B.Subramanyam Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.M.Muruganandham v. Mr.B.Subramanyam Reddy

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

R. Anandkumar Vs M/s. Sundaram Finance Limited

R. Anandkumar, Vs M/s. Sundaram Finance Limited

Mr.Gopalji Agarwal, Vs Mr.D.Pratish

V.Anand alias Anand Subramaniam v Vs Geetha Kalyani Viswakumar

P.Logu Vs M.Sivaprakasam

M.Chandran Vs v.Natarajan