- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:24 WP No. 107495 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 107495 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: PARIMI SUDHAKAR NAIDU S/O VENKATA NAIDU AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS OCC: BUSINESS R/O A.KONDAPURAM VILLAGE PUTLUR MANDAL DISTRICT: ANANTHAPURAMU STATE: ANDHRA PRADESH. …PETITIONER (BY SRI ANAND BAGEWADI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI SHIVARAJ P.MUDHOL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . MANGALA JAYARAMULU S/O M.OBULESU AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS OCC: BUSINESS R/O GUNTAKAL TOWN DISTRICT: ANANTHAPURAM NOW RESIDING AT PLOT NO. 245, 19TH WARD RAGHAVENDRA COLONY 2ND STAGE BALLARI TALUKA: BALLARI, DISTRICT: BALLARI PIN – 583 102. Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:24 WP No. 107495 of 2024 2 . MANGALA MADHUSUDHANA S/O M.OBULESU AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS OCC: BUSINESS R/O GUNTAKAL TOWN DISTRICT: ANANTHAPURAM NOW RESIDING AT PLOT NO. 245, 19TH WARD RAGHAVENDRA COLONY 2ND STAGE BALLARI, TALUK: BALLARI DISTRICT: BALLARI, PIN – 583 102. 3 . MOHAMMAD FAZILIDDIN S/O MOHAMMAD CHAMANUDDIN AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS OCC: BUSINESS R/O MOHISANA MANJIL, NEHARU NAGAR 3RD CROSS, HOLELKERE ROAD CHITRADURGA, DISTRICT: CHITRADURGA NOW RESIDING AT VISHWAS HOSPITAL BASAVESHWAR STREET, 7TH CROSS BY THE SIDE OF BASAVAN KALUVA HOSPET, TALUK: HOSPET DISTRICT: VIJAYANAGAR, PIN – 583 201. 4 . FARJANA HASMIN S/O MOHAMMAD FAZILUDDIN AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS OCC: BUSINESS R/O MOHISANA MANJIL, NEHARU NAGAR 3RD CROSS ROAD, HOLELKERE ROAD CHITRADURGA, DISTRICT: CHITRADURGA NOW RESIDING AT VISHWAS HOSPITAL BASAVESHWAR STREET, 7TH CROSS BY THE SIDE OF BASAVAN KALUVA HOSPET, TALUKA: HOSPET DISTRICT: VIJAYANAGAR, PIN – 583 201. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:24 WP No. 107495 of 2024 5 . THE SUB-REGISTRAR SUB-REGISTRAR OFFICE HOSPETE, TALUK: HOSPETE DISTRICT: VIJAYANAGAR PIN – 583 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SHARAD V.MAGADUM, AGA FOR R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21/10/2024 IN INSOLVENCY PETITION NO.5002/2024 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BALLARI (SITTING AT HOSAPETE) AND TO ALLOW THE PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 21.10.2024, passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ballari (Sitting at Hosapete), whereby rejecting Insolvency Petition No.5002/2024, filed by the petitioner. 2. Heard Sri Anand Bagewadi, learned counsel for Sri Shivaraj P. Mudhol, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:24 WP No. 107495 of 2024 and Sri Sharad V. Magadum, learned Additional Government Advocate representing respondent No.5. 3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: The first respondent borrowed an amount of Rs.15/- lakhs for his family necessities from the petitioner and his family members - a joint family and in turn, executed promissory notes of Rs.1/- lakh each, on 16.06.2021. Despite repeated demands, the first respondent failed to repay the money. Respondent No.1 in collusion with his brother is said to have executed a document on 07.03.2024, in favour of other respondents. The sale is said to have deliberately executed. The first respondent has no other property other than the property alienated as aforesaid. Since the first respondent is not in a position to discharge his debts and debts of other creditors, the petitioner filed an insolvency petition in Insolvency Petition No.5002/2024 before the concerned Court under Section 9 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 (for short ‘the Act’), seeking to declare the first respondent as insolvent and the sale deed executed in favour of the third and fourth respondents to be null and void. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:24 WP No. 107495 of 2024 4. The concerned Court answering the said petition filed by the present petitioner, declines to accept the petition on the score that Section 10 of the Act and the conditions stipulated thereon, is not complied with, to grant declaration of the first respondent as an insolvent and the sale deed executed by him is sham or null and void. The concerned Court by its order dated 21.10.2024, rejects the petition on the score that it is not in compliance with the rigors of Section 10 of the Act. It is therefore, the petitioner is before this Court in the subject petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would reiterate the grounds urged before the concerned Court and before this Court as well. 6. The issue is, whether the order of the concerned Court warrants interference. The concerned Court places heavy reliance upon the conditions stipulated under Section 10 of the Act. Section 10 of the Act reads as follows: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:24 WP No. 107495 of 2024 “10. Conditions on which debtor may petition (1) A debtor shall not be entitled to present an insolvency petition, unless he is unable to pay his debts and (a) his debts amount to five hundred rupees; or (b) he is under arrest or imprisonment in execution of the decree of any Court for the payment of money; or (c) an order of attachment in execution of such a decree has been made, and is subsisting, against his property. (2) A debtor in respect of whom an order of adjudication [whether made under the Presidency- Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 (3of 1909), or under this Act] [Substituted by Act 11 of 1927, Section 4, for "made under this Act" .] has been annulled, owing to his failure to apply, or to prosecute an application for his discharge, shall not be entitled to present an insolvency petition without the leave of the Court by which the order of adjudication was annulled. Such Court shall not grant leave unless it is satisfied either that the debtor was prevented by any reasonable cause from presenting or prosecuting his application, as the case may be, or that the petition is founded on facts substantially different from those contained in the petition on which the order of adjudication was made.” (Emphasis supplied) Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Act deals with the conditions as to when the debtor shall not be entitled to present an insolvency petition, unless he is unable to pay his debts and his debts amount to five hundred rupees or the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:24 WP No. 107495 of 2024 debtor is under arrest or imprisonment in execution of the decree of any Court for the payment of money or an order of attachment in execution of such a decree has been passed by the concerned Court and is subsisting, against his property. None of those traits have happened in the case at hand. The petitioner is wanting to get the sale deed annulled by this indirect methods, which ought to be done directly. Petition under Section 9 of the Act cannot be entertained, unless conditions stipulated under Section 10(1) of the Act supra is complied. 7. In that light, no fault could be found in the impugned order, rejecting the insolvency petition filed by the petitioner, seeking to declare the first respondent as insolvent and consequently, hold the sale deed executed as null and void. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition lacking in merit, is dismissed. __________SD/-__________ JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA nvj List No.: 1 Sl No.: 111