JAGDISH SAO Vs. AJOY KUMAR AGRAWAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Sec. 75 of the Provincial Insolvency Act (Act V of 1920) hereinafter referred to as "the Act", by a debtor whose application under Ss. 7 and 13 of the Act, to be adjudged as an insolvent, has been dismissed by the District Judge, Monghyr, by his order dated 18.1.1968. According to the appellant's case, he had got debts amounting to over Rs. 30,000/ - -which he was unable to pay. He had taken loans on handnotes from two persons, namely, Ajoy Kumar Agrawal and Bijoy Kumar Agrawal respectively, of Rs. 18,000 - -and Rs. 6,000/ - -who were made opposite party nos. 1 and 2 in the said application. Farther, his case was that he was liable to pay Rs. 2,500/ - -as income tax does and another sum of Rs. 1,300/ - -which was also in respect of income tax dues, under certificate started by the Certificate Officer, Monghyr. In respect of the dues of Bijoy Kumar Agrawal, the appellant's case was that he had instituted a suit in the Court of Subordinate Judge of Asansol in which his claim was for a sum of Rs. 24,480/ -. As the appellant had got no landed properties and had only a few utensils and cloths which were mentioned in the list of properties appended to the application which he had valued at Rs. 118/ - and was prepared to place those properties at the disposal of the Court, he prayed that he be adjudged insolvent.

(2.) The application was opposed by the Income Tax Officer who had also filed a petition stating that the Agarwals were in collusion with the applicant and in fact the applicant did not owe any money to them and the entire case set up by him that he had obtained loans from those two persons was not true. Further, it was stated that the applicant had got a house worth Rs. 50,000/ - and some other properties which he had concealed.

(3.) The applicant had examined himself in court and supported his assertions about the loans from Bijoy Kumar Agrawal and Ajoy Kumar Agrawal and he also supported his claim of the income tax dues and the certificate dues. The learned Judge, on a consideration of the evidence and the other materials on the record, came to the following conclusions: (i) that there was no witness to corroborate the petitioner on the question of taking the two loans and there was no evidence that any suit had been filed against him at Asansol. As such, he had not established his case of having taken loans from the two creditors, (ii) he did not appear to have made a full and honest disclosure about his properties; in any case, he appears to have fraudulently concealed about his share in a house at Jamalpore, and lastly, the application was an abuse of processes of the court. Accordingly, the learned Judge dismissed the application as, in his opinion, he thought that the petitioner could not be adjudged insolvent.