RAVI STEELWAYS Vs. INDUSTRIAL GASES BIHAR LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision raises somewhat an interesting point of law, namely, whether a proceeding initiated by the creditor-petitioner in the Insolvency Court can proceed without notice under Section 19 (3) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 (Act No. V of 1920) to some of the partners of a firm registered under the Partnership Act (Act No. IX of 1932), if such notice has been served on the firm and some of the partners.

(2.) Ravi Steelways is a firm registered under the Partnership Act, undisputedly, this firm having five partners, namely, K. D. Murarka, Sri Hari Murarka, Murlidhar Murarka, full brother of K. D. Murarka, Sharda Devi wife of Sri Hari Murarka and Uma Devi wife of Ranjit Murarka, nephew of K. D. Murarka. M/s. The Industrial Gases (Bihar) Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act filed an Insolvency Petition under Act V of 1920, in the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi arraying M/s. Ravi Steelways, K. D. Murarka, Sri Hari Murarka and Ranjit Murarka as debtors opposite parties. Notices under Section 19(3) of Act V of 1920 was, undisputedly, served on M/s. Ravi Steelways, K. D. Murarka and Sri Hari Murarka and they appeared in the case and filed written statement alleging, inter alia, that Ranjit Murarka was not a partner of the firm and he had been wrongly joined as one of the judgment debtors. As a plea of non-joinder, it was stated in the written statement that three of the other partners of this firm, namely, Murlidhar Murarka, Sharda Devi and Uma Devi had not been impleaded. The creditor-petitioner filed a petition for amendment which was allowed. The name of Ranjit Murarka was expunged and the names of abovementioned three other partners, namely, Murlidhar Murarka. Sharda Devi and Uma Devi were added.

(3.) The Insolvency petition had been filed on 12-8-1977 alleging the date of the cause of action as the 4th July, 1977. The names of the three partners abovementioned were added by order No. 38 dated 21-3-1979. There is no material to show whether the creditor-petitioner took any step for issue of notice under, Section 19 (3) of the Act on Murlidhar Murarka. But, undisputedly notices under Section 19 (3) of the Act were sent on Sharda Devi and Uma Devi but they could not be served as they were out with the result that there was no valid service of notice on them. It is at this stage that M/s. Ravi Steelways, the firm and two of its partners, namely, K. D. Murarka and Sri Hari Murarka filed a petition before the Insolvency Court for dismissal of the application on the ground that no notice under Section 19 (3) of the Act was served on the other three partners abovementioned.