LAWS(PVC)-1914-2-40

TRILOKI NATH Vs. BADRI DAS

Decided On February 25, 1914
TRILOKI NATH Appellant
V/S
BADRI DAS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of insolvency proceedings under Act III of 1907. The petitioner presented a petition asking that he should be adjudicated an insolvent. His petition complied with the provisions of Section 11, and contained a statement that he was unable to pay his debts, which exceeded Rs. 500. Notice went in the ordinary course to the creditors, some of whom were represented or appeared when the debtor was examined and opposed adjudication. The debtor was examined and stated that his debts exceeded Rs. 500 and that his means and property were quite insufficient to pay those debts. At the instance of the opposing creditors his brother was examined, and he produced certain documents connected with the property of the family to which the debtor belonged. The learned Additional Judge appears to have considered that the documents which were produced were devices for saving the property of the debtor from his creditors. One of these documents purported to be a will of the debtor s father, the other purported to be a deed of relinquishment made by the debtor in favour of his father in the life-time of the latter. It seems to us that the opinion of the learned Additional Judge amounted to no more than this that he was not satisfied on the evidence that the debtor s debts exceeded his assets. He seems to have been largely influenced in arriving at this opinion because he thought that the alleged will and deed of relinquishment would not have been upheld in a court of law. He does not appear to have found or intended to find that the documents were forgeries. The petition was dismissed.

(2.) The petitioner debtor has appealed to this Court, and it is argued on his behalf that under the circumstances of the case the Court was bound to adjudicate him an insolvent under Section 16 (1) of the Act.

(3.) On behalf of the respondents it is contended that under the provisions of Section 15 (1) the Court has power for any "sufficient cause " to dismiss the petition and that the fact that the petitioner debtor was unable to satisfy the Court that his debts exceeded his assets was quite sufficient cause for dismissing the petition. It was further contended that even if Section 15 (1) did not apply, still the Court had power under its inherent jurisdiction to dismiss the petition in the present case as an abuse of the process of the court. Section 6, Clause (3), provides that a debtor shall not be entitled to present an insolvency petition unless his debts amount to Rs. 500, or he has been arrested or imprisoned in execution of a decree of any court for payment of money, or an order of attachment in execution of such a decree bag been made and is subsisting against his property. It is admitted in the present case that the debts did amount to Rs. 500. The debtor was, therefore, clearly " entitled to present" an insolvency petition. An act of bankruptcy had been committed under Section 5 by the presentation of his petition. Section 16 (1) provides that where a petition is not dismissed under the preceding section and the debtor is unable to propose any composition or a scheme which shall be accepted by the creditors and approved by the Court in the manner thereafter provided, the Court shall make an order for adjudication.