K C BHARGAVA Vs. SURYAKANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FEELING aggrieved by an Order passed by the learned VI Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Indore, dated 31-8-82 in Insolvency Case No. 1/80, the non-applicant No. 3 have preferred this appeal under Section 75 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 (for short Act ). Facts in short to appreciate the issue involved in the application out of which this appeal eminets need mention infra.

(2.) RESPONDENT is the applicant in the trial Court. He filed an application before the trial Judge under Section 9 of the Act, inter alia on the allegations that the non-applicant No. 1 is the firm, whereas other non-applicants i. e. 2 to 6 are its partners. It is alleged that the applicant (respondent herein) had done certain construction work for the non-applicant firm and for the work that he did, he has to recover a sum of Rs. 28163. 88 paisa from the non-applicants. It was alleged that, despite sending notices and reminders the non-applicants did not pay any need to the request made, nor made the payment. It was alleged that one of the partner of the non-applicant firm had admitted the liability of the dues. It was further stated that several suits are filed by creditor against the non-applicant firm and hence a clear case under Section 9 of the Act is made out declaring the non-applicants, insolvant for the non-payment of dues.

(3.) THE application was contested by the present appellant, who was non-applicant No. 3 in the trial Court, while denying the allegations of the application, it was alleged that neither there are any dues pending nor payable by the firm to the applicant. As regards the admission of liability so far as one of the partner (N. A. 4) was concerned, it was alleged that he (N. A. 4) is colluding with the applicant. The non-applicant then also stated the reasons of collusion as also the reasons why the suit was filed by the Bank and what the firm had to deal with No. 4 and his wife. In substance, the contesting non-applicant No. 4 (appellant herein) denied the claim of the applicant and prayed for the dismissal of application.