Akshay D Thakar vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited And Anr on 31 March, 2021
Section 13(2) postulates that at the
hearing of the Petition, the Court shall require proof of the debt of the
Petitioning Creditor and of the act of insolvency or if more than one
act of insolvency is alleged in the petition, some one of the alleged acts
of insolvency. Apart from the claim of the Petitioning Creditor which
is crystallised in an adjudication by the Co operative Court, the claim
ssp 19/27
APP 583 OF 2019.doc
of the substituted Petitioning Creditor has also been crystallised in an
arbitral award." It has, therefore, been held in the above judgment
that a substituted petitioning creditor is required to meet the
definition of the expression 'creditor' as contained in section 2(a) of
the said Act. Apart from being bound by, I am in respectful agreement
with the judgment in Mandvi Co-operative Bank Limited vs. Anant
Hegade. I would only add a few words in support of this view."