9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Application for excusing delay in filing affidavit of proof of claim. 2. Interpretation of rule 91 of Indian Company Rules and its application. 3. Comparison of rule 91 with Sections 191 and 229 of Indian Companies Act. 4. Comparison of rule 91 with English Bankruptcy Act and Presidency Towns Insolvency Act. 5. Analysis of past judgments and principles regarding admission of claims in insolvency cases. 6. Decision on excusing the delay and directing the Official Liquidator to admit the claim. The judgment deals with an application by a creditor seeking to excuse the delay in filing her affidavit of proof of claim and directing the Official Liquidator to receive the same. The Official Liquidator argued that under rule 91 of the Indian Company Rules, the applicant must prove that the delay was due to ignorance or lack of notice for her claim to be admitted. The rule states that a creditor failing to file proof of debt within the specified time can apply for relief, and the Judge may adjudicate upon the debt. The applicant's counsel acknowledged the rule's literal interpretation but argued that in this case, the delay was due to ignorance. The relevant provisions of Sections 191 and 229 of the Indian Companies Act were examined, emphasizing the Court's power to fix times for creditors to prove their debts. The English Bankruptcy Act's Section 65 principle of allowing creditors to prove debts even after dividend declaration was discussed, along with the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act's similar provision in Section 72. The judgment further delved into past judgments and principles guiding the admission of claims in insolvency cases. Reference was made to the application of principles from English company law, where assets are held in trust for all creditors, allowing late proofs without disturbing previous dividends. The Court cited previous cases where creditors were entitled to participate in assets as long as justice could be served without affecting prior distributions. The Judge concluded that the applicant fell within the scope of rule 91 and excused the delay, directing the Official Liquidator to admit the claim and pay the dividend if possible without disrupting previous distributions. The Judge suggested amending rule 91 in line with the English Bankruptcy Act and Presidency Towns Insolvency Act to align with the Indian Companies Act and established principles in insolvency cases.
|
