0 vs Ravikiran Aggarwal on 26 May, 2020
18 The cases of suppression and non-disclosure cited by
Mr.Dhond, namely, Chittineni Mohana Rao (supra), Dasari Srihari Rao
(supra), Kanshi Ram (supra) and Pinnamshetty Kavitha (supra) were under
the new Provincial Act, i.e. the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920. The new
provisions, namely, Sections 10 and 24 of that Act, are materially different
from the corresponding provisions of the PTI Act, namely, Section 14 and
Section 15 of the PTI Act. Section 10 of the new Provincial Act requires as a
condition that the petitioning debtor must be unable to pay his debts and
Section 24 of that Act inter alia requires a proof, before an adjudication
order may be passed, of his entitlement to present the petition and for the
purpose of proving his inability to pay his debts, he is required to furnish
such proof as to satisfy the court that there are prima facie grounds for
believing the same; the court, if and when so satisfied, is then not bound
to hear any further evidence thereon. These provisions are materially
different from the corresponding provisions of the PTI Act which are in pari
15 / 19
sat inpt 21-2019 and 22-2019.doc
materia with the old Provincial Act.