AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Banumathi, J. - This appeal arises out of the order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 05.03.2002 allowing the Revision Petition on the ground that the order passed by the Insolvency Court was not a reasoned order. The High Court granted liberty to the appellants to work out the remedy through other forum if it is available under law.
The fourth respondent herein borrowed a sum from the third respondent herein and executed a promissory note in favour of the third respondent. The fourth respondent-debtor by a Sale Deed dated 11.1.1996 sold his properties in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2. The third respondent-creditor filed an Insolvency Petition, being I.P. No.17/1996 under Sections 6,7,9 and 13 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Erode (Insolvency Court) for adjudging the fourth respondent as an insolvent. In the petition it was inter alia averred that with a view to defeat the third respondent-creditor''s debt, the fourth respondent transferred his property and that the Sale Deed in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2 is not bona fide.
The appellants herein, who are the other creditors, filed I.A. No.67/1996 in I.P. No.17 of 1996 under Section 16 r/w Section 5 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for their substitution seeking leave to come on record as appellant Nos.2 to 6 and to prosecute the Insolvency Petition.
The Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode, allowed the application stating that the second respondent thereon (V. Sivashankar) had no objection to the application and allowed the application for substitution vide order dated 25.02.1999. Being aggrieved by the said order, respondent Nos.1 and 2 (purchasers) have filed the Revision Petition before the High Court. The High Court allowed the Revision Petition observing that the order passed by the Insolvency Court does not contain any reason. The impugned order passed by he High Court is under challenge in this appeal.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and respondent Nos.1 and 2.
The order of the Insolvency Court dated 25.02.1999 allowing the application (I.A. No.67/1996) in I.P.No.17/1996 filed by the appellants reads as under:
"R-2 has no objection to allow this Petition. R-2 is not present. His counsel also not present. Hence in the interest of justice, it is necessary to allow this Petition and the same is allowed"
No doubt, as observed by the High Court, the order passed by the Court below was not a reasoned order. In fairness to all the parties, the High Court should have remitted the matter back to the Insolvency Court/Subordinate Judge, Erode. In our view, the High Court erred in allowing the Revision Petition and the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
The impugned order of the High Court in Civil Revision Petition (NPD) No.2217 of 1999 dated 05.03.2002 is set aside and the matters are remitted back to the Subordinate Judge, Erode for consideration of I.A. No.67/1996 in I.P.No.17/1996 afresh. We are informed that I.P.No.17/1996 has been dismissed for non-prosecution on 17.03.2016. Notwithstanding the dismissal of I.P. No.17/1996, the Subordinate Judge, Erode shall take up I.A. No.67/1996 and shall afford sufficient opportunity to all parties concerned and dispose of the same in accordance with law. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.