Dismissed¶32

Hamsa Minerals and Exports Private Limited v. the Official Assignee

Madras HC6 Mar 2026APPLN/93/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

insolvency claim rejection; Official Assignee Madras; claim barred by law of limitation; sundry debtor; acknowledgement of debt; income tax returns AY 2006-2007 to 2017-2018; 12 demand drafts dated 08.10.2005; Andhra Bank Bangalore; Rs.1 crore claim; Claim No. 200 of 2014; I.P.No. 25 of 2014; Section 8 PTI Act; Order II Rule 1 Insolvency Rules; Order XIV Rule 8 Original Side Rules; Hamsa Minerals and Exports Private Limited; V.Vikram Reddy; S.Arjunlal Sunderdas; application dismissed no costs.

What did the court decide?

The Court held that the Official Assignee had correctly assessed the facts and had rightly rejected the claim, and the Bench was not inclined to differ from that order. ¶28

Hamsa Minerals and Exports Private Limited Vs the Official Assignee — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant's claim petition (Claim No. 200 of 2014, presented on 09.06.2014) seeking Rs.1 crore allegedly invested on 08.10.2005 was barred by the law of limitation. +1 more

¶22

Court's answer

The Court held that the Official Assignee had correctly assessed the facts and had rightly rejected the claim, and the Bench was not inclined to differ from that order.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

Income tax returns in which the applicant referred to the insolvent as a sundry debtor are documents filed by the applicant himself and cannot be construed as an acknowledgement of debt by the sundry debtor.

¶27

Key takeaways

The applicant produced no documents showing initiation of judicial recovery proceedings within three years of 08.10.2005 or any acknowledgement by the insolvent within that period; having slept over the matter for more than nine years, the claim cannot be adjudicated without reference to the law of limitation.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (C.V. Karthikeyan and K. Kumaresh Babu, JJ.; order by C.V. Karthikeyan, J.) dismissed Application No. 93 of 2024 in I.P. No. 25 of 2014, filed under Order II Rule 1 of the Insolvency Rules read with Section 8 of the PTI Act and Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side Rules, thereby confirming the Official Assignee's order dated 14.08.2023 rejecting Claim No. 200/2014-D of Hamsa Minerals and Exports Private Limited. The claim was for Rs.1 crore said to have been invested on 08.10.2005 with the insolvent S. Arjunlal Sunderdas through 12 demand drafts purchased from Andhra Bank, N.R. Road, Bangalore Branch. Held: (i) the claimant's income tax returns for AYs 2006-2007 to 2017-2018 describing the insolvent as a sundry debtor are the claimant's own documents and cannot be construed as an acknowledgement of debt; (ii) no initiation of judicial recovery proceedings or acknowledgement within three years of 08.10.2005 was produced, and a claimant who has slept over the claim for over nine years cannot seek adjudication without reference to the law of limitation. Application dismissed with no costs.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

RESERVED ON : 03.02.2026

¶3

PRONOUNCED ON : 06.03.2026

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU

¶6

Application No. 93 of 2024 IN

¶7

I.P.No. 25 of 2014

¶8

Hamsa Minerals and Exports Private Limited Rep. by its Partner V.Vikram Reddy Door No.2/1285, B.V.Reddy, Colony Chittoor 5617 001. ... Applicant

¶9

¶10

The Official Assignee High Court, Madras. ... Respondent

¶11

S.Arjunlal Sunderdas (deceased) 23, Anderson Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 006. ... Insolvent

¶12

1/6

¶13

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

¶14

PRAYER : Appeal filed under Order II Rule 1 of Insolvency Rules read with Section 8 of PTI Act and Order XIV Rule 8 of the Original Side rules, to set aside order dated 14.08.2023 passed by the Official Assignee rejecting my Claim No. 200/2014-D and Consequently, admit my claim.

¶15

*** For Applicant : Mr. Mukundan For Respondent : Mr. K.V.Ananthakrushnan Assisted by Ms.A.Janani

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

(Order of the Court was made by C.V.KARTHIKEYAN , J . )

¶18

The applicant M/s. Hamsa Minerals and Exports Private Limited , represented by its partner V.Vikram Reddy had filed a claim petition in Claim No. 200 of 2014 in the office of the Official Assignee stating that he had invested a sum of Rs.1/- crore as business investment by 12 demand drafts, all dated 08.10.2005, nine of them for a sum of Rs.9 lakhs and one of them for a sum of Rs.7 lakhs and two of them for a sum of Rs. 6 lakhs each, purchased from Andhra Bank, N.R.Road, Bangalore Branch, from current account No. CA/01/00010620. It had been contended that this

¶19

2/6

¶20

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

¶21

amount was reflected in the income tax returns for the assessment years 2006-2007 to 2017-2018 wherein the insolvent Arjunlal Sunderdas was shown as sundry debtor. It had been further contended that since he came to understand that Arjunlal Sunderdas had been adjudicated as insolvent, he had come forward by preferring this claim petition for the said sum of Rs.1/crore.

¶22

The Official Assignee by order dated 14.08.2023 had rejected the claim petition holding that it was barred by the law of limitation. It had been contended by the Official Assignee that the said investment was said to have been made on 08.10.2005 and steps for recovery of the same through lawful judicial process should have been initiated on or before 08.10.2008. It was therefore contended that the claim petition presented on 09.06.2014 was barred by the law of limitation.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned counsel for the Official Assignee.

¶24

The claimant Hamsa Minerals and Exports Private Limited represented by its partner V.Vikram Reddy had preferred a claim No. 200 of 2014 in the office of the Official Assignee seeking a claim for Rs.1/- crore

¶25

3/6

¶26

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

¶27

on the strength of investments made with the insolvent, Arjunlal Sunderdas for a total sum of Rs. 1 crore by way of 12 demand drafts purchased from Andhra Bank, N.R.Road, Bangalore Branch, on 08.10.2005. Nine of the said demand drafts were for a sum of Rs.9 lakhs each, one of them was for a sum of Rs.7 lakhs and two of them were for a sum of Rs. 6 lakhs each. The said demand drafts were purchased on 08.10.2005. It has been stated by the claimant that he had referred to the insolvent as a sundry debtor in his income tax returns filed for the assessment years 2006-2007 to 2017-2018. However, such income tax returns are documents filed by the applicant and they cannot be construed as acknowledgement of debt by the sundry debtor. The applicant has not produced any documents to show initiation of any judicial proceedings within the period of three years from 08.10.2005 seeking recovery of the said amount or acknowledgement by the insolvent within the period of three years of the said date. The applicant having slept over for a long period of nearly more than 9 years cannot now claim that his claim should be adjudicated without reference to the law of limitation.

¶28