Whether under sec.28 (2) of The Provincial Insolvency Act , the money recovery suit is not maintainable pending Insolvency Petition ? - No. Or. VII, rule 1 C.P.C. - Money recovery suit filed after receiving Insolvency Petition Notice - Whether maintainable under sec.28(2) of Provincial Insolvency Act - Trail court dismissed the I.A. - Hence this C.R.P. - Their Lordships held that Pendency of proceedings as referred under Section 28(2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act refers to the pendency of proceedings subsequent to adjudication of the application, but not on mere filing of application seeking declaration of applicant as insolvent.- So the suit is maintainable - 2015 Telagana & A.P. msklawreports


Whether in view of pendency of insolvency
proceedings in I.P.No.34 of 2010, the suit filed by the 1st respondent is
barred under Section 28(2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920.

the petitioner/1st defendant has filed the present application in I.A.No.777
of 2014 under Order 7 Rule 11 r/w.Sec.151 CPC, for rejection of
plaint on the ground that the same is barred under law.  It is the case
of petitioner that he has already filed insolvency petition which is
pending in I.P.No.34 of 2010, seeking to declare him as insolvent and
soon after receipt of summons in the aforesaid I.P., the 1st
respondent/plaintiff has filed suit for recovery of money.
Trail court dismissed the I.A.
Hence this CRP
held that
From a reading of the provision under Section 28(2) of the
said Act, it is clear that, on making of an order of adjudication, the
whole of the property of the insolvent shall vest in the Court or in a
receiver as provided in the said Section and shall become divisible
among the creditors, and thereafter, after adjudication, it is not open to
any creditor to commence any suit or other legal proceeding, except
with the leave of the Court and on such terms as the Court may
impose.  It is clear from the said provision that Section 28(2) comes
into effect only after adjudication of the application filed by the
applicant under the provisions of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920.
Therefore, after adjudication of the application filed by the applicant
seeking to declare him as insolvent and during pendency of further
proceedings for division of properties to the creditors, no creditor can
institute any suit or commence any legal proceedings without the
leave of the Court.  Pendency of proceedings as referred under Section
28(2) of the Act refers to the pendency of proceedings subsequent to
adjudication of the application, but not on mere filing of application
seeking declaration of applicant as insolvent.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.

cancellation of the sale deeds = Under the Registration Act, 1908 and the Rules framed thereunder, which provide that registration/cancellation of document is only with reference to the executant and the claimant under a document, which is already registered. Petitioner, being a third party, is, therefore, not entitled to approach the registering authority and seek cancellation of the documents executed by third party in favour of any other party. Petitioner’s reliance upon Rule 26 of the Rules framed under the Registration Act is also misconceived inasmuch as Rule 26(k)(i) of the Rules specifically refer to the duty of the registering authority to ensure that the deed of cancellation is executed by all the executants and the claimants, who are parties to previously registered document and only on mutual consent a deed of cancellation can be registered. Since petitioner is not a party to the impugned sale transactions between two different individuals, he is not entitled to seek cancellation thereof and in any case, the petitioner does not satisfy even the requirement of Rule 26, referred to above.