GANGABISHNU SINGHA Vs. KAHN AND KAHN AND CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from an order passed by the learned District Judge of Khulna, whereby he directed a complaint to be made against one Gangabishnu Singha for wilfully failing to perform the duty of producing all books imposed upon him by Section 22, Provincial Insolvency Act. The learned District Judge has given leave to appeal to this Court from his decision and it appears to me therefore that there is no difficulty in holding, under Section 75 of the Act, that the appeal is a good appeal apart altogether from the order complained of being shown to be one of those specified in Schedule 1, Provincial Insolvency Act.

(2.) The position is this: The appellant was the subject of a creditor's petition for insolvency which was presented by one Jaykissen on 12 September 1927. That petition was admitted on the same day. On 24 September there appears to have been an order appointing one Mr. N. N. Ghosh, pleader, interim receiver. The order does not appear to have gone on to state what the receiver had to receive or what the present appellant was to do; but I suppose it meant that Mr. Ghosh was to be the receiver of all the properties of the appellant. On 8th November, Mr. Sen was appointed receiver in the place of Mr. Ghosh. In December 1927 the debtor filed five books of account and, in February or March 1928, the receiver had made a report on that and notice had gone to all the creditors. The present respondents, Messrs. Kahn and Kahn, entered appearance and claimed to be creditors of the debtor. On 11 April 1928 the petition of Jaykissen was amended by adding certain further respondents, of whom two were later given up, and, on 5 May 1928, a proportion order was refused to the appellant. On 8 August 1928, the creditor's petition for adjudication came on for hearing and was dismissed.

(3.) The learned District Judge took the view that Jaykissen had proved no good petitioning creditor's debt. He held that the various acts of bankruptcy alleged were not proved and that the Court had no jurisdiction. Further he was of opinion that the whole proceedings were probably collusive on the part of the present appellant and the man who was posing as an adjudicating creditor, namely Jaykissen. Consequently he very properly put an end to the whole proceedings and the attempt to take proceedings in insolvency came to an end.