HAJI FIDAHUSSEN Vs. LAKHMICHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred against an order refusing to grant an absolute discharge to the Appellant insolvent. The facts found by the Court below are that the Petitioner had represented his debt to be about Rs. 6,000. His creditors had proved this debt against him to the extent of Rs. 2,283 -13 -3. The Petitioner owned a grocery shop. This was sold by him for Rs. 3,200 before he submitted his petition in the Insolvency Court. He failed to produce his accounts either before the Receiver or the Court.

(2.) THE only point pressed in this appeal is that the Court below was not justified in refusing to grant to the appellant an absolute discharge. He could have suspended the operation of his order of absolute discharge for some stated period or could have granted conditional discharge. An order which neither suspends nor grants an order of discharge, may be with a condition, is not legal. At any rate, it is said, it is not proper. It is clear from the finding of the Receiver and the Court that the insolvent has neither produced before the Court the accounts in respect of his business nor accounted for the loss of his assests immediately before his application in the Insolvency Court. The Petitioner, therefore, was not entitled to an order for his absolute discharge. the next question is ought he be granted a discharge conditionally.

(3.) SECTION 41, Provincial Insolvency Act is as follows: