Haribaskaravarman(Died) v. Official Assignee

Madras HC21 Mar 2025CMP/15769/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; CMP No. 15769 of 2024; OSA SR No. 81976 of 2023; IP No. 68 of 2006; Appln No. 96 of 2009; condonation of delay; 3023 days delay; insolvency; sale set aside as void against Official Assignee; collusive sale to defeat and delay creditors; Document No. 3026/2006; purchaser's knowledge of insolvency adjudication; attendance before Official Assignee on 19.12.2006; death of purchaser 17.07.2022; appeal by mother; delay fatal; dismissal; no costs.

What did the court decide?

None - condonation of the 3023-day delay refused; CMP No. 15769 of 2024 dismissed with no costs. ¶105-106

Haribaskaravarman(Died) Vs Official Assignee — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None - condonation of the 3023-day delay refused; CMP No. 15769 of 2024 dismissed with no costs.

¶105-106

Issue for consideration

Whether there is any justification for the delay of 3023 days in filing the appeal, i.e., whether the delay in filing the OSA against the order dated 10.03.2015 should be condoned. +1 more

¶83-84

Court's answer

There is no justification for the delay of more than 3000 days in filing the appeal; the failure to explain such significant delay is fatal to the case, and the miscellaneous petition seeking condonation must fail.

¶102-104

Ratio / Principle

S. Haribaskaravarman was well aware of the factum of the declaration of insolvency on 06.06.2006 immediately thereafter, as the reports and records of the proceedings before the Official Assignee establish categorically that he was summoned for personal hearings and appeared in response to the notices; his assertion of being a bonafide purchaser without prior notice does not avail him.

¶89-90

Key takeaways

There is a signed record of the purchaser having attended the office of the Official Assignee on 19.12.2006, demonstrating early knowledge of the insolvency and negativing any excuse of ignorance for the belated appeal.ratio¶94-95
The impugned order dated 10.03.2015 cannot be faulted: the learned Judge engaged in a detailed narration of the relevant events taking into account the OA's submissions (including the specific plea of a collusive sale intended to defeat and delay creditors, recorded towards the end of para 4), and this Court finds the conclusion arrived at therein perfectly in order.ratio¶75-76

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Condonation of delay - 3023 days' delay in filing OSA (SR No. 81976 of 2023) against order dated 10.03.2015 in Appl No. 96 of 2009 in IP No. 68 of 2006, whereby the sale by insolvent B. Ravikumar through his power agent to Haribaskaravarman (Document No. 3026/2006) was declared void against the Official Assignee and set aside - appellant (mother/legal representative of the deceased purchaser) pleaded bona fide purchase without notice, but records show the purchaser was summoned to and attended personal hearings before the Official Assignee, signing the record on 19.12.2006 - no explanation offered for the inordinate delay; every day of delay to be explained; delay held fatal to the case - CMP dismissed, no costs. (Madras High Court, Division Bench of Dr Justice Anita Sumanth (author) and C. Kumarappan J., 21-03-2025)

¶1

CMP No. 15769 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 21-03-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶8

CMP No. 15769 of 2024 AND

¶9

OSA SR NO. 81976 OF 2023,IP NO. 68 OF 2006,APPLN NO. 96 OF 2009

¶10

Haribaskaravarman(died)

¶11

W/o. Rangasamy, No.9, AP Chatram, Uthiramerur, AP Chatram, Kancheepuram 603 406.

¶12

Appellant(s)

¶13

¶14

Official Assignee High Court of Madras, Chennai.

¶15

2.B. Ravikumar No.24, Vinayaka Masitry St, Chennai 79.

¶16

3.S.K. Rahamatullah S/o. S.K. Mastan Sahib, No.6, 19 th St, Ashtalakshmi Nagar, Alapakkam, Chennai 116.

¶17

Respondent(s)

¶18

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

¶19

OSA SR No. 81976 of 2023

¶20

CMP No. 15769 of 2024

¶21

1. Haribaskaravarman(died)
	Applicant(s)
Vs 1. Official Assignee
IP No. 68 of 2006	Respondent(s)
1. B. Ravi Kumar
	Applicant(s)
Vs
1.
APPLN No. 96 of 2009	Respondent(s)
1. Official Assignee
	Applicant(s)
Vs
1. B. Ravikumar
No.24, Vinayaka Maistry Street,
Chennai - 79
2.S.K. Rahamatulla
No.6, 19th Street, Ashtalakshmi
Nagar, Alappakkam, Chennai - 116
3.HARIBASKARAVARMAN https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶22

CMP No. 15769 of 2024

¶23

4/5 Arcot Road, Thandavamurthy Nagar, Valasaravakkam, Chennai - 87.

¶24

Respondent(s)

¶25

CMP No. 15769 of 2024

¶26

PRAYER

¶27

To condone the delay of 3023 in filing the above appeal against the order dated 10.03.2015 made in Appl No. 96 of 2009 in IP 68/2006

¶28

OSA SR No. 81976 of 2023

¶29

PRAYER

¶30

IP No. 68 of 2006

¶31

PRAYER

¶32

APPLN No. 96 of 2009

¶33

PRAYER

¶34

To Order Declaring That The Sale Of The Property Morefully Described In The Schedule Hereunder Effected By The 1st Respodnent B. Ravikumar Through His Power Agent 2nd Respondent S.K. Rahamathullah To 3rd Respondent Haribaskaravarman Vide Document No. 3026/2006

¶35

CMP No. 15769 of 2024

¶36

For Appellant(s): Mr.S.Mukunth, Senior Counsel For M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates For Respondent(s): Mrs.C.B.Meena, Official Assignee (fac)

¶37

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

¶38

CMP No. 15769 of 2024

¶39

ORDER

¶40

(Order of the Court was made by Anita Sumanth J.)

¶41

One B.Ravikumar (Insolvent) was declared as insolvent in I.P.No. 68 of

¶42

2006 on 06.06.2006. The application seeking declaration of insolvency was

¶43

made by him on 12.05.2006.

¶44

However, the insolvent had alienated the property at Plot No. 19, Mangala Nagar, (Now Astalakshmi Nagar,), 26th Street, Alapakkam, Porur,

¶45

Chennai – 600 116, ad-measuring 700 sq ft comprised in S.No.338 (Part) and an extent of 3200 sq ft comprised in S.No. 339/1A (Part), in all ad-measuring 3200 sq ft at No.73, Maduravoyal Village, Ambattur Taluk, Thiruvallore District (property / property in question), to the present appellant on 06.06.2006, on the

¶46

very the date, where he had been declared insolvent.

¶47

The Official Assignee (OA) had thereafter has filed an application

¶48

seeking to set aside the aforesaid sale in A.No.96 of 2009. The prayers in the application are as follows:-

¶49

(i) to declare that the sale of the property morefully described in the schedule hereunder effected by the 1st respondent B.Ravikumar through his power agent second respondent S.K.Rahamathullah to the third respondent

¶50

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

¶51

CMP No. 15769 of 2024

¶52

Haribaskaravarman vide Document no. 3026/2006 of Sub Registrar's Office, Virugambakkam, shall be void against the Official Assignee by setting aside the sale.

¶53

(ii) to grant a warrant of seizure in favour of the Official Assignee to seize the property from the custody or possession of the third respondent herein or any other person and with a view to such seizure to break open the doors of the said building of the schedule mentioned property with a further direction to the area police officer to render necessary assistance for such seizure in case of necessity.

¶54

(iii) to direct the respondents to deliver all the title deeds such as Document No. 3026/2006 and other documents and deeds from their possession relating to the property of the official assignee”

¶55

Notice was issued in the application to the present appellant and the

¶56

learned Judge records that there was no response and none entered appearance

¶57

on their behalf. Hence the application came to be allowed after considering the

¶58

averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application as well as the

¶59

evidence of PW1 and PW2, who had deposed on 10.03.2015 in the course of the hearing.

¶60

One of the tentative submissions advanced by Mr.S.Mukunth,

¶61

learned Senior Counsel, for M/s Sarvabhauman Associates, appearing for the

¶62

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

¶63

CMP No. 15769 of 2024

¶64

appellant, is that there is no reasoning in support of the conclusion in order dated 10.03.2015.

¶65

We have perused the order carefully and find that the learned Judge

¶66

has engaged in a detailed narration of the relevant events, taking into account

¶67

the submissions made by the OA. The Assistant Section Officer had been

¶68

examined as PW1 and three documents were marked through him. A

¶69

Government authorized Engineer, one Anbarasan, had been examined as PW2.

¶70

Though R2 and R3 have not entered appearance, R1, the insolvent had entered

¶71

appearance through counsel but had chosen not to cross examine the witnesses.

¶72

The OA has canvassed a specific argument to the effect that the

¶73

sale effected on 06.06.2006 was a collusive sale entered into solely with the

¶74

intention of defeating and delaying the claim of the creditors. This position has

¶75

been recorded by the learned Judge towards the end of para 4 of order dated 10.03.2015. In such circumstances, we find that the conclusion arrived at in

¶76

order dated 10.03.2015, is perfectly in order.

¶77

It is moreover, to be noted, that the appellant does not contest any

¶78

of the facts contained therein. Thereafter, the purchaser/ S.Haribaskaravarman

¶79

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

¶80

CMP No. 15769 of 2024

¶81

passed away on 17.07.2022 and the present OSA has been filed by his mother in

¶82

2023, albeit with a delay of 3023 days.

¶83

We are hence required to consider whether there is any justification

¶84

for the aforesaid delay to have transpired and examine the request for condonation of the same.

¶85

At paragraph 8 of the petition filed seeking condonation of delay,

¶86

the petitioner, the mother of S.Haribaskaravarman has averred at para 8 that her

¶87

son was a bonafide purchaser of the property in question and that he had not

¶88

been served with any notice prior to the execution of the said sale deed. That may well be so.

¶89

However, S.Haribaskaravarman was well aware of the factum of

¶90

declaration of insolvency on 06.06.2006, immediately thereafter, as the reports

¶91

as well as the records of the proceedings before the OA establish categorically

¶92

that Haribaskaravarman has been summoned for personal hearings before the

¶93

OA and had appeared in response to the notices.

¶94

There is a record of proceedings of him having attended the office

¶95

of the OA on 19.12.2006, duly signed by him. The appellant has been supplied

¶96

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

¶97

CMP No. 15769 of 2024

¶98

with a copy of the proceedings.

¶99

In such circumstances, there is no justification for the instant

¶100

appeal to have been filed belatedly that too with such significant delay of more

¶101

than 3000 days. The purchaser, was well aware of the factum of declaration of insolvency of the vendor as early as in December, 2012 and ought to have been vigilant to protect his interests in that regard. It is a settled position that every

¶102

day of delay ought to be explained by a person seeking condonation or at least a reasonable and plausible explanation offered overall. In the present case, we

¶103

find no such justification for any delay at all, let alone a delay as significant as

¶104

the present one, which we opine, is fatal to his case.

¶105

For the aforesaid reasons, this Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.

¶106

No costs.

¶107

(ANITA SUMANTH J.)(C.KUMARAPPAN J.)

¶108

21.03.2025

¶109

Index:No Speaking Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes

¶110

ssm

¶111

CMP No. 15769 of 2024

¶112

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

¶113

CMP No. 15769 of 2024

¶114

¶115

1.Official Assignee

¶116

High Court of Madras, Chennai.

¶117

2.B. Ravikumar No.24, Vinayaka Masitry St, Chennai 79. 3.S.K. Rahamatullah S/o. S.K. Mastan Sahib, No.6, 19 th St, Ashtalakshmi Nagar, Alapakkam, Chennai 116.

¶118

OSA SR No. 81976 of 2023

¶119

¶120

1.Official Assignee

¶121

IP No. 68 of 2006

¶122

¶123

¶124

APPLN No. 96 of 2009

¶125