CHADALAWADA LAXMI PRASANNA Vs. VANGETI KRISHNAMURTHY AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.R.P.No. 2216 of 2006:

(2.) Needless to say it is pursuant to which the 30th respondent, who is the petitioner in I.A. No.1144 of 2005 maintained the petition impugning the entrustment of the properties of the debtor/insolvent to the official receiver by including this deleted item also from the schedule at the instance of bank pursuant to the order in I.A. No.1044 of 2003 supra. The lower Court after hearing dismissed the same.

(3.) The reasons assigned by the lower Court impugned in the grounds of the revision, no way sustainable as once that item of property is deleted from the means and properties of the debtor insolvent, the question of appointing a receiver to that property also does not arise. However, the fact remains as stated supra, if at all to include that property the Court can say it was deleted inadvertently earlier and thereby it has to be included to bring the property also to sale subject to the mortgage debt of the bank and with such an order for entrusting this item also to the receiver. C.R.P.No. 4864 of 2008: