The court dismissed a Second Appeal arising from an order confirming the clubbing of multiple insolvency petitions involving common parties and subject matter, finding no substantial question of law and no prejudice from the consolidation.
The Second Appeal (S.A.No.399 of 2013) and SAMP No.1607/2013 are dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY
S.A.No.399 of 2013
Date : 30-4-2013
Between: S.G. Shankara Babu .. Appellant And A. Venkata Rami Reddy and others .. Respondents
Counsel for appellant : Sri Ghanta Rama Rao Counsel for respondents :
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:
This Second Appeal arises out of Judgment dated 2- 1-2013 in A.S.No.105/2007 on the file of the learned VI Additional District Judge, Kurnool, whereby she has confirmed the order dated 23-7-2007 in I.A.No.100/2007 in I.P.No.76/2005 of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool.
I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
Respondent No.1 filed I.P.No.76/2005 before the trial Court to declare respondent No.2 as insolvent and execution of sale deed dated 1-8-2005 by respondent Nos.2 and 3 in favour of the petitioner constitutes an act of insolvency. In addition to the said I.P., other creditors have also filed I.P.Nos.64, 72 and 73 of 2005 against the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 and 3. As the respondents in all the said I.Ps. and the subject matter of dispute are common, respondent No.1 has filed I.A.No.100/2007 for clubbing all the Insolvency Petitions together for disposal of the same by leading common evidence. This application
was opposed by the petitioner. However, the trial Court has allowed the said application. As noted hereinbefore, the said order was confirmed by the lower appellate Court by order dated 2-1-2013 in A.S.No.105/2007.
In my opinion, the clubbing of all the Insolvency Petitions against the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 and 3 would tend to the convenience of the parties. No prejudice is caused by such clubbing of the petitions. I do not find any substantial question of law on which the orders passed by the Courts below can be interfered with in exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
For the above mentioned reasons, the Second Appeal is dismissed.
As a sequel, SAMP No.1607/2013 is disposed of as infructuous.
________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy
Date : 30-4-2013
AM
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an appeal against the order allowing clubbing of insolvency petitions involves a substantial question of law warranting interference.
Whether clubbing of insolvency petitions against common parties tends to the convenience of parties without causing prejudice.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
S.G. Shankara Babu
A. Venkata Rami Reddy
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
