RADHESHYAM AGRAWAL Vs. HARIOM TRADING CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The debtor-petitioner has come up in revision aggrieved by the order dated 26-3-90 passed by the Insolvency Court directing a notice under S. 19(2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act', for short) to be published in local newspapers and also served on other creditors who are not the petitioners.

(2.) The two creditors, non-petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 herein, filed a petition under Ss. 6 and 9 of the Act seeking adjudication of the non-petitioners therein, as insolvents. The petition has been filed on 27-9-88. It alleges, inter alia, that on 20-7-88, the debtors displayed a notice outside their shop stating that they were not in a position to make payment to their creditor; that in order to defeat the claims of the creditors, the goods in trade have been removed from their shop to elsewhere; and that the debtors gave a false reply to the notice demanding payment of their debts issued by the petitioning creditors.

(3.) The alleged debtors are; the revision-petitioner, his wife and two sons. It appears from the statement of facts as made at the Bar that notice of the insolvency petition was served on the debtors Nos. 2, 3 and 4, but not on the debtor No. 1, who was away from Gwalior at the time of when the process server went to serve the notice. The insolvency Court initially proceeded ex parte against the debtor No. 1 (the revision-petitioner), but then he made appearance before the insolvency Court seeking setting aside of the ex parte order and further complaining the various averments made in the insolvency petition were false and the petition was not maintainable.