KARTAR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIADURPATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals have been heard together as there are common questions of facts and law involved in both the appeals. Therefore, this common judgments will govern both the appeals.

(2.) It may be noticed that in both the appeals, the appellant as well as the respondents are common. The judgment of the appellate Court, dated the 29th of March, 1967, arises out of Miscellaneous Appeal No. 33 of 1965 filed by Mossomat Durpati, respondent No. 1. She was aggrieved by the trial Court judgment wherein it was held that she was entitled to release of only 3/4ths amount of gratuity which was declared by respondent No. 5, Tata Iron & Steel Company, under letter dated the 11th of June, 1963 (Ext. A), and, according to the order of the trial Court, the balance of 1/4th amount of the gratuity of her husband Sonu Goala (deceased) should go towards the payment of the creditors of her husband. One of such creditors is the appellant Kartar Singh. The appellate court, on appeal by her, allowed her appeal end held that the order of the learned Subordinate Judge so far as it related to the attachment of 1/4th amount of the gratuity was contrary to law. The result was that the entire amount of gratuity money remained released in favour of respondent No. 1. Therefore, aggrieved by the said order of the appellate Court, Kartar Singh filed Miscellaneous Appeal No. 157 of 1967 in this Court. The other appeal filed by Kartar Singh is Miscellaneous Appeal No. 158 of 1967 which is against the judgment of the appellate Court of the same date, namely, the 29th of March, 1967. This judgment of the appellate Court was in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 28 of 1965 in which Kartar Singh was the appellant, who was aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court to the extent wherein it was held that only 1/4th of the gratuity money payable to Sonu Goala, the husband of Mt. Durpati, was available to the creditors. According to Kartar Singh, the trial Court ought to have held that the entire amount of gratuity was available to the creditors. The appellate Court, on appeal, observed "I have held that the gratuity never vested in the Court, and was not, in fact, attached by the Court. The learned Sub-Judge may have been under the impression that it had been attached, but there is no specific order of vesting or attachment and there could, therefore, be no occasion for its release. In that view of the matter, the appeal filed by Kartar Singh was dismissed. Therefore, Kartar Singh has filed in this Court Miscellaneous Appeal No. 158 of 1967 against the said order of the appellate Court, dated the 29th of March, 1967.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant in both the appeals, in order to appreciate the points involved in these appeals, has referred to certain relevant facts and dates. Sonu Goala, the husband of Mossomat Durpati, was under the employment of respondent No. 5 at TISCO in Jamshedpur. He had taken loan from certain creditors, including the appellant. At the instance of the creditors, Sonu Goala was declared insolvent on the 31st of March, 1959, under Section 27 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Relevant provision of Section 27 of the Act reads thus:-- "(1) If the Court does not dismiss the petition, it shall make an order of adjudication, and shall specify in such order the period within which the debtor shall apply for his discharge." According to the said provision, the period of three years was fixed for his debtor to apply for his discharge. Subsequently, the said period was extended further to one year. Even then, Sonu Goala did not apply for his discharge. In that view of the matter, the Insolvency Court acted under Section 43 of the Act. The relevant provisions of which read thus:--