Shri Prashant Mamgain vs Alka Kaushal
2017 Latest Caselaw 6339 Bom

                                                   1                         39.inpt-21.16.doc

sbw             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION


                        INSOLVENCY PETITION NO.21 OF 2016


      Prashant Mamgain                                           .. Judgment Creditor
               Vs.
      Alka Kausal                                                .. Judgment Debtor


      Mr. R.C. Jain for the Judgment Creditor.
      None for the Debtor.
                                           CORAM : A.K. MENON , J.

DATED : 16TH AUGUST, 2017 P.C. :

1. Mr. Jain, the learned counsel for the petitioning creditor states that the

judgment debtor has been served with the petition on 23 rd December,

2016. He has filed a joint affidavit of service of the bailiff of the sheriff

of Mumbai and the representative of the petitioning creditor. The

affidavit dated 17th/28th March, 2017 is on record. None appears on

call for the judgment debtor. The record indicates that on 20 th June,

2017 the matter came to be adjourned to 4 th July, 2017 at the instance

of the judgment debtor's Advocate. Once again on 4 th July, 2017 the

Advocate for the judgment debtor submitted that an appeal had been

filed before the District Court, Delhi against the judgment debtor and

decree on 4th October 2012 passed by the Additional District Judge-1,

South-West, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi and that his client was in the

2 39.inpt-21.16.doc

process of moving an interim application in the appeal. He sought

time. At his request the matter was adjourned to 1 st August, 2017.

st

2. On 1 August, 2017 this Court was not sitting in session the matter is

therefore listed today. None appears for the judgment debtor. No

appearance has been entered either although the advocate has

represented the debtor on two previous occasions.

3. Mr. Jain, the learned counsel for the petitioning creditor points out that

earlier the judgment debtor has challenged the insolvency notice by

taking out notice of motion no.54 of 2016. The notice of motion came

to be dismissed by speaking order on 4th October, 2016.

4. Mr. Jain states that there is no challenge to the said order. In the

circumstances, there appears to be no defence. Mr. Jain further

submits that he has not been served with any order in the appeal said

to have been filed nor his client has been served in the appeal. In the

circumstances, the petition is liable to be allowed. I therefore pass the

following order:-

(i) There will be an order in terms of prayer clause (a).

(ii) The Official Assignee is hereby appointed of the properties of the

insolvent wherever situated which shall vest in the Official

Assignee and shall become divisible amongst the insolvents

creditors.

(iii) The Official Assignee also to take necessary steps in accordance

3 39.inpt-21.16.doc

with the Circular dated 14 th October, 2011 issued by Ministry of

Finance, Department of Revenue (Central Board of Direct Taxes),

New Delhi and to invest the amount so realised from the insolvents

with any of the Nationalized Banks.

(A.K.MENON, J.)