S SIVAGAMIAMMAL Vs. SAGAR CONSTRUCTIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals have arisen from a common order of the learned Single Judge of this court made in Application Nos. 234 and 235 of 2005 in Insolvency notices in I. N. Nos. 187 and 184 of 2004.

(2.) THE circumstances under which these appeals have arisen could be stated thus: a suit in C. S. No. 895 of 2000 was filed by M/s. Sagar Constructions and Mr. M. K. Mathivathanan, who were applicants, against the respondents Sivagamiammal and another for a declaration that the deed, dated 10. 7. 2000 executed by the respondent in the applications, namely the first defendant in the suit, was void and inoperative and also for consequential permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from taking any action on the strength of the said document. The parties to the suit entered into a memorandum of compromise, pursuant to which a decree came to be passed. The said Sivagamiammal, calling herself as decree holder and terming the said M/s. Sagar Constructions and Mathivathanan as judgment debtors, filed insolvency notice petitions, stating that it was a money decree; that they have not paid the decree debt and hence they were liable to answer the insolvency notices. Notices were ordered in those petitions by the Master of this court on 23. 12. 2004. On service of notice, the said Mathivathanan and M/s. Sagar Constructions made application Nos. 234 and 235 of 2005, seeking to set aside the said insolvency notices. Both the applications were taken up for enquiry by the learned Single Judge, who on consideration of the submissions made and looking into the materials available, ordered that the insolvency notices were unsustainable and accordingly, set aside the same. Hence these two appeals have arisen at the instance of the said Sivagamiammal, who took insolvency notices.

(3.) THE only question that would arise for consideration in these appeals is that whether the applicants, who are respondents in these appeals, are liable to honour insolvency notices in question?