MOHANLAL Vs. RAMESHWAR DAYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal raises an important question relating to the interpretation of the expression 'liquidated sum' as appeared in Section 9 (1) (b) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

(2.) Respondent No. 1 Rameshwar Dayal, who was a creditor of Messrs. Mohanlal Yadram, presented an application before the District Judge, Alwar, praying that Mohanlal and other partners of the firm be declared as insolvent. This petition was contested by the opposite parties on the ground that the credit of the petitioner was not a liquidated sum and, therefore, the petition was not maintainable under Section 9 of the Act. In order to decide the controversy raised by the opposite party Mohanlal appellant it will be necessary to set out certain relevant facts.

(3.) Petitioner Rameshwar Dayal carries his business in food grains and 'sarsoon' at Alwar in the name and style of 'Rameshwar Dayal Ashok Kumar'. Opposite parties Mohanlal, Kailash Chand and Ratan Lal also carry on their business through a partnership firm known as Messrs. Mohanlal Yadram. The petitioner sold 'sarsoon' to Messrs. Mohanlal Yadram on two occasions, that is on 5-4-71 and 12-4-71. A cheque of Rs. 13,000 was given to the petitioner by Mohanlal on 19-4-71 towards the payment of the 'sarsoon' purchased on 5-4-71. It is said that Rs. 272.95 remained due against that transaction. As regards the sale of 'sarsoon' made in favour of Messrs. Mohanlal Yadram on 12-4-71, the amount due to the petitioner from the said firm was Rs. 9,994.47. It is alleged that Mohanlal and his other partners sustained losses and therefore, they started disposing of their properties situated at Alwar. The petitioner having apprehended that respondents Mohanlal and others would defeat the claims of the petitioner, he made an application before the learned District Judge, Alwar, to declare Mohanlal and his partners as insolvent.