RAMESHWAR LAL AGARWALA Vs. KUTI MIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a miscellaneous second appeal by one of the creditors, Rameshwar Lal Agarwala, arising out of a proceeding under the Provincial Insolvency Act (Act 5 of 1920) (hereafter to be referred to as the Act), 1920.

(2.) On the application of one Damodari Davi, insolvency case No. 29 of 1958 was started against the respondent, Kuti Mian, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Jamshedpur. He was adjudged insolvent in the case. An application was filed by Bansidhar Agarwala, one of the creditors, in that case that the insolvent had about Rs. 2500 in the hands of the Tinplate Company of India Limited, which for the sake of brevity will be hereinafter referred to as the company, due to him on account of bis provident fund, and the same became due to the insolvent. Hence, it was prayed that the said provident fund might be attached and brought to Court for the distribution among the creditors who had proved their debts. Intimation was sent to the company about this fact and the money was attached by the insolvency Court. The company raised an objection that the Employees Provident Funds Act, 1952, would apply in s case of the company and under S. 10 of the Act the amount could not be attached and brought to the Court for the distribution amongst the creditors of the insolvent. The insolvent also filed an objection to that effect. The contention raised by the creditors was that insolvent Kuti Mian was an excluded employee within the meaning of S. 17 of the Act and as such S. 10 of the Act had no application to the facts of that particular case.

(3.) The admitted position in the case is that the amount was lying in deposit with the company as provident fund in favour of the insolvent Kuti Mian and that he was no longer an employee of the company.