SHAH BAKULESHBHAI HASMUKULAL Vs. KAUSHIKKUMAR KANTILAL MODI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged an order dated 8-8-2007 below exh. 6 in insolvency Petition No. 7/2007 passed by learned City Civil Court, Ahmedabad.

(2.) THE petitioner has instituted the said insolvency Petition. The petitioner is the debtor. In his petition, he filed application exh. 6 and stated that for issuance of public notice, substantial expenditure would be incurred. His financial condition is weak. No prejudice will be caused to anyone if such a notice is dispensed with and instead Court permits that such a notice be published only in official gazette. On this application, learned Judge passed his order on 18-8-2007 which is challenged in this petition.

(3.) BEFORE me, learned advocate Ms. Paurami Seth contended that financial position of the petitioner would not permit him to incur the expenditure required for public notice. Public notice is not mandatory and in lieu thereof publication in official gazette can be permitted. My attention was drawn to the decision of learned single Judge of this Court in case of Mohanlal Premjibhai thakkar and others v. Shah Atulkumar kantilal and others reported in AIR 1984 Guj 152 in which relying on an earlier decision of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Hasmukh Engineering Works and another v. Babubhai Chhotalal Amin and Anr. reported in 19 GLR 172, it was held that the trial Court had exercised discretion vested in it not to issue public notice before hearing the debtor and that therefore, the Appellate Court was not justified in striking down such an order.