MADHORAM RAGHUMULL Vs. OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by Madhoram Raghumull against an order which was made by my learned brother Mr. Justice Greaves on the 13 of June 1922, by which he declared that two assignments dated respectively the 2 March, 1921 and the 29 of June 1921 were void as against the Official, Assignee under the provisions of Section 56 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act. The appellants have appealed against that order, and it is necessary to state a few facts, about which there is no dispute.

(2.) The insolvents were Surajmull and Mongalchand. They traded under the name of Puran Chand Hurruck Chand. They were adjudicated insolvents at the instance of a creditor on the 15 of March 1921. On the 2 March, 1921, thirteen days before the adjudication, Surajmull and Mongalchand by a deed of assignment assigned to Raghunath Das Sewlal, a firm of traders in Calcutta who were creditors of the insolvents, certain outstanding debts which were alleged to be owing to the insolvent firm of Puran Chand Hurruck Chand. The debts are set out in the schedule to the deed, and amounted roughly speaking to about Rs. 60,800. The proprietors of the firm of Raghunath Das Sewlal is Ramlal Pachisia. On the 29 of June 1921, Ramlal Pachisia assigned the outstanding debts, which had been assigned to him by the insolvent firm, to the appellants for the consideration of Rs. 30,000. A creditor, one Kissen Chand Banthia, who was the adjudicating creditor, had taken steps challenging the assignment from the insolvent firm to Ramlal Pachisia: and, on the 3 May 1921 the Official Assignee wrote to Ramlal Pachisia for inspection of the assignment to him. On the 20 of June, according to the affidavit which was before the learned Judge, Ramlal Pachisia appeared before the Registrar in Insolvency and applied for a week's adjournment to enable him to produce the deed of assignment as the same was with the munim gomastha who was then in his native village and absent from Calcutta. The result was that a week's time was granted to him. That week's time expired on the 27 of June, and, on the 27 of June he appeared again and asked for further time until the 29 of June, and that time was granted by the Registrar in Insolvency. On the 1 of July Ramlal Pachisia appeared before the Registrar in Insolvency and said that he was unable to produce the deed of assignment to him, inasmuch as he had on the 29 of June assigned" his right, title and interest under the assignment of the 2nd of. March to the appellants for the sum of Rs. 30,000. Then certain parties were examined under Section 36 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act before the Registrar in Insolvency and, in order of date, Ramlal Pachisia was examined on the 1 of July 1921, Mongalchand, who was one of the insolvents, was examined on the 8 of August 1921; then one of the partners in the appellants firm, Raghumull, was examined on the. 1 of September; then Gopaldas Modi, another partner in the appellants firm, was examined on the 19 of January 1922, and, Nathmull, another partner in the appellants firm, was examined on the 20 of February 1922; and, on the 4 of April, the Official Assignee made the application to the learned Judge, who was taking insolvency matters on the Original Side, in respect of which my learned brother's judgment was passed.

(3.) The application was as follows: "Take notice that on the 1 day of May 1922...an application will be made...for an order that "the original deed of assignment of ail debts due to the insolvents...and executed by them in favour of...Raghunath Das Sewlal on the 2nd day of March 1921 as also the original deed of assignment executed by.