Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Kottapalli Bapayya Vs. Official Receiver of Guntur and ors.

Kottapalli Bapayya vs Official Receiver of Guntur and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Oct 03, 1929
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/781521

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai
Decided On
Subject
Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

-

Key legal issue
Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Kottapalli Bapayya

Respondent

Official Receiver of Guntur and ors.

Legal References

Cases Referred
In Muhammad Ibrahim v. Ram Chandra I.L.R.
Reported In
(1929)57MLJ816

Excerpt

- 1. the question is, does the case fall within section 35 of the provincial insolvency act? the insolvent applied under that section for the annulment of his adjudication. the section runs thus:where, in the opinion of the court, a debtor ought not to have been adjudged insolvent, or where it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that the debts of the insolvent have been paid in full, the court shall, on the spplication of the debtor, or of any other person interested, by order in writing, annul the adjudication.2. it is admitted by his counsel that the debts of the insolvent have not been paid in full, but it is stated that all the creditors gave him a complete and full discharge. that is not enough, for what the section contemplates is, payment of the debts in full. this is the effect of the numerous decisions on the point. in muhammad ibrahim v. ram chandra i.l.r.(1925) a. 272 which we follow, the authorities are set forth and we do not propose to refer to them in any detail. the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.

Full Judgment

1. The question is, does the case fall within Section 35 of the Provincial Insolvency Act? The insolvent applied under that section for the annulment of his adjudication. The section runs thus:

Where, in the opinion of the Court, a debtor ought not to have been adjudged insolvent, or where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the debts of the insolvent have been paid in full, the Court shall, on the Spplication of the debtor, or of any other person interested, by order in writing, annul the adjudication.

2. It is admitted by his counsel that the debts of the insolvent have not been paid in full, but it is stated that all the creditors gave him a complete and full discharge. That is not enough, for what the section contemplates is, payment of the debts in full. This is the effect of the numerous decisions on the point. In Muhammad Ibrahim v. Ram Chandra I.L.R.(1925) A. 272 which we follow, the authorities are set forth and we do not propose to refer to them in any detail. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial