BENI PRASAD Vs. PHULA MAL MADAN MOHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from an order passed in insolvency proceedings. The applicant, Beni Prasad, was adjudged insolvent on 29 November 1930. He was directed to apply for his discharge after the expiry of a year. He applied within that time for a protection order under Section 31, Provincial Insolvency Act, on 2nd May 1931, but his application was rejected.. After expiry of one year, on 27th November 1931, he applied for his discharge. This application was also not granted, but he was directed to apply for his discharge after the expiry of six months. Before the expiry of that period, one of the creditors, namely Shyam Lal, applied, on 20 February 1932, for his arrest and imprisonment in civil jail and the appellant was arrested and committed to prison. On the same date, that is, 20 February 1932, he applied for a protection order. The application was dismissed by the learned District Judge of Aligarh. The present appeal is from his order refusing to grant protection.

(2.) The order appealed from proceeds on the solitary ground that a previous application for protection was dismissed on 2 May, 1931, and no circumstances have since come into existence which can justify a protection order. Referring to the previous order, dated 2 May, 1931, I find that protection was refused for the following: reasons: There are heavy debts about which the insolvent keeps no accounts. A very large amount of debts is said to have been incurred on account of a cocaine case. The amount is said to be Rupees. 2,600. I am not prepared to believe that so much was spent in a cocaine case. Nor do I believe-that he spent so much over his illness as he means-to show. I refuse the application for protection order.

(3.) I do not think a previous order refusing protection is a bar to a protection order being made at a subsequent stage. Lapse of time and the fact that no misconduct can be attributed to the insolvent in the mean time are circumstances which may justify a Court in granting an order of protection which has been previously refused. Section 31, Provincial Insolvency Act, is so worded as to confer a wide discretionary power on the insolvency Court. The discretion is not to be exercised arbitrarily but with due regards to the circumstances of each case.