MULJI HARSHI SHAH Vs. BASANT KUMAR JAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Kishore jain, the learned counsel for the appellant.

(2.) This appeal is by the debtor who has been adjudicated insolvent vide order dated december 3, 1996. It is this order which is under challenge in this appeal. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that before the learned Insolvency Judge, a request was made on behalf of the debtor-appellant for some time to enable to him to deposit the amount claimed by the petitioning creditor. However, the learned Insolvency Judge after recording the statement of the advocate for the appellant that the appellant has no case on merits, observed that there were 10 to 12 other creditors whose claims were still pending and that it should not be in general interest of the body of creditors to adjourn the matter. The learned Insolvency Judge, accordingly, made the insolvency petition absolute and adjudicated the appellant insolvent.

(3.) During the pendency of appeal the order of attachment and its publication remained stayed. However, the Official Assignee was directed to issue advertisement inviting claims and also directing the appellant to file schedule of assets to the Official Assignee with an undertaking not to dispose of his properties. The debtor-appellant has disclosed his assets to the Official Assignee and also furnished an undertaking not to dispose of his assets. The assignee issued an advertisement inviting claims and we are informed by the Dy. Official assignee who is present in the Court that 18 claims have been received from various creditors amounting to Rs. 2,15,775/- in all.