RAVIKANTH BORRA (also known as RAVI GUPTA) v THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY’S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS & Anor

An applicant for annulment of a bankruptcy must have a legitimate interest in the application. A person cannot seek annulment merely because a bankrupt shares his name. Where an alleged third party faces a real risk of serious prejudice because his identity or address appears on a bankruptcy order, the court may have jurisdiction to amend or clarify the order under its bankruptcy jurisdiction. The court should examine the substance of the dispute and the relief required, rather than determine the matter summarily by reference to the application’s form. Tax assessments ordinarily create statutory debts which cannot be challenged in bankruptcy proceedings, save in very rare circumstances, particularly where the time for appeal has expired.

HMRC obtained a bankruptcy order against Ravikanth Gupta in respect of unpaid tax. Ravikanth Borra applied to annul the order, asserting that he was a different person and had been confused with the bankrupt. Separate applications were made in the name of Ravikanth Gupta, who appeared by video link from India and claimed to be the person concerned.

The court considered whether the applications concerned one person using different names or two distinct individuals, whether the statutory tax assessments could be challenged, and whether the alleged third party had standing or another jurisdictional route to obtain relief.

1. Applications dismissed. The court found that Ravikanth Borra was the person against whom the tax assessments, bankruptcy petition and bankruptcy order were directed. Ravikanth Gupta was not the bankrupt and had been used as a front.
2. An applicant for annulment under section 282 of the Insolvency Act 1986 must have a legitimate interest. A person cannot seek annulment merely because another person with the same name has been made bankrupt. The principle stated in Die Sparkasse Bremen AG v Mehmet Armutcu [2012] EWHC 4026 (Ch) was applied.
3. The court indicated that, if a genuine third party’s name and address appeared on a bankruptcy order so as to create a real risk of serious prejudice, the jurisdiction under section 375, or the court’s general control under section 363, might permit amendment or appropriate declarations. That issue did not arise on the facts because Borra was the bankrupt.
4. The court declined to determine the applications summarily by reference to their form. It considered the underlying identity issue and the relief required to remedy any injustice.
5. The tax assessments created statutory debts. They had not been appealed, and the time for challenging them had expired. The court therefore did not reopen their calculation.
6. The evidence established deliberate fabrication of applications and witness statements, use of different identities and addresses, and an attempt to mislead the trustee and the court. Borra’s applications were dismissed. Gupta’s stayed applications were also dismissed because he had no interest in them. The papers were to be referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions.