Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 206 (MAD)

K. Anbarasi v. .

2022-01-24

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

body2022
JUDGMENT : Prayer: Insolvency Petition has been filed under Sections 9(1)(F), 10,11,12,14 and 15 of Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, III 1909 and order 111 Rule of Insolvency Rules, 1958 praying to pass an order: (i) adjudicating the petitioner/debtor as an insolvent (ii) directing that her estate to be administered by the Official Assignee, Madras in a regular manner. (This case has been heard through Video Conferencing) 1. The Official Assignee has filed a report dated 20.01.2022 seeking to annul the order of adjudication dated 03.01.2019 by which Mrs.K.Anbarasi was adjudged as an insolvent in I.P.No.24 of 2018 under Section 41 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 (the Insolvency Act). 2. In the above report, the Official Assignee stated that the insolvent filed I.P.No.24 of 2018 on which the order of adjudication was passed on 03.01.2019. The said order of adjudication was published on 15.06.2019 in the Tamil daily, Makkal Kural. The insolvent disclosed six unsecured creditors for a total sum of Rs.11,43,921/-. As regards assets, clothes and a mobile phone of the value of Rs.18,000/- and house hold articles of the value of Rs.19,900/- were disclosed. The statement of the insolvent was recorded on 31.01.2019. However, the insolvent failed to discharge the obligation of filing the schedule of affairs or submitting herself for public examination under Section 27 of the Insolvency Act. 3. The Official Assignee scheduled a meeting of creditors on 25.07.2019. Only two out of six disclosed creditors attended the said meeting. One unsecured creditor filed a claim for a sum of Rs.3,42,156/-. 4. The Official Assignee seeks annulment because the insolvent did not assist the Official Assignee in relation to asset investigation and also failed to file a discharge application. In addition, the Official Assignee points out that there was no representation for the insolvent at multiple hearings, including the last hearing on 03.01.2022. In fact, at the hearing on 03.01.2022, the counsel, who had been engaged by the insolvent reported that he had no instructions and also that he did not know the whereabouts of the insolvent. 5. Upon considering the submissions and the report of the Official Assignee, a case for annulment is made out on account of the fact that the insolvent failed to file the schedule of affairs, submit herself for public examination and attend court hearings. The said insolvent also failed to file a discharge application or co-operate in asset investigation. 5. Upon considering the submissions and the report of the Official Assignee, a case for annulment is made out on account of the fact that the insolvent failed to file the schedule of affairs, submit herself for public examination and attend court hearings. The said insolvent also failed to file a discharge application or co-operate in asset investigation. 6. Accordingly, the order of adjudication dated 03.01.2019 in I.P.No.24 of 2018 is annulled.