TILAK RAJ Vs. HARYANA FINANCIAL CORPORATION AND OTHERS
LAWS(P&H)-2012-5-410
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on May 16,2012

TILAK RAJ Appellant
VERSUS
Haryana Financial Corporation And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Petitioner/appellant is in second appeal against the judgments passed by the courts below whereby his petition under Section 10 of the Provincial Insolvency Act,1920 (for short the 1920 Act) was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division)-cumInsolvency Judge,Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari, and in first appeal the findings of the Insolvency Judge were upheld.
(2.) Briefly noticed, appellant, a partner in M/s Kartik Udyog in order to run the business of the Firm raised loan from Haryana Financial Corporation and Punjab National Bank. The firm is said to have went in losses. Since the loan obtained from the said financial institutions was not repaid, the land, building and machinery were taken into possession by respondent no.1-Haryana Financial Corporation and disposed of by way of sale in an open auction. Since respondent no.1-Corporation and respondent no.2-Bank were pressurizing the appellant to repay the remaining loan of Rs.31,00,000/- and Rs.4,00,000/- respectively, he filed a petition under Section 10 of the 1920 Act, alleging therein that appellant was left with no moveable/ immovable property and was earning Rs.3000/- per month by working as small time Commission Agent. In these circumstances, prayer was made for declaring him an insolvent. Upon notice, respondent no.1-Corporation took preliminary objection that it was a body corporate under the provisions of the State Financial Corporation Act and as such provisions of 1920 Act were not applicable to it. Respondent no.2-Bank filed written statement stating therein that there was relationship of borrower and creditor between the parties and since the appellant/petitioner failed to pay the amount the bank effected the recovery under Securitization Act. On the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed. Both sides led evidence in support of their respective pleas. The learned trial court after hearing both sides and perusing the oral/documentary evidence on record, dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner for declaring him as insolvent. In the first appeal, filed by the appellant, the findings of the trial court were upheld. Hence the present second appeal.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.