LAWS(PVC)-1926-5-128

MANINDRA NATH ROY CHOUDHURY Vs. RASIK LAL PAKHIRA

Decided On May 11, 1926
MANINDRA NATH ROY CHOUDHURY Appellant
V/S
RASIK LAL PAKHIRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of an application by four persons constituting a firm of the name of Rajnarayan Rasik Lul Pakhira to be declared insolvent. There was also a petition by one of their creditors asking them to be declared insolvent. These applications were opposed by a number of creditors. The learned District Judge of Alipur hold that the firm was entitled to be declared insolvent and he made the necessary order. Against this order some of the opposing creditors have appealed to this Court. The first point raised by Mr. Roy on behalf of the applicants is that the variation of the mill which is one of the main assets of the debtors was made without any notice to the creditors and, therefore, cannot stand, and a fresh valuation should be made.

(2.) A reference to the judgment of the learned District Judge would show that the creditors were actually informed by the Receiver of the date on which the valuation was going to be made. No doubt in his order of the 23 of May the learned District Judge stated that it was true that the Receiver had not given notice to the creditors. The learned District Judge, however, apparently subsequently found that his order of the 23 May was passed on some misapprehension. Even if the creditors had not received any notice of the date when the expert was going to value the mill it is difficult to see what difference it would have made. The creditors did not suggest that they were experts in valuation of the mill property. What possible difference their presence or absence at the time when the valuation was made by the valuer could make it is difficult to conceive. However, in view of the finding of the learned Judge, this point fails.

(3.) The next objection urged by the appellant is that the valuation of the mill as made by the valuer is incorrect. The valuation was made by an expert apparently chosen by the Receiver out of a number of expert valuers whose names were suggested by one of the creditors. No objection was apparently taken to the appointment of this gentleman. This gentleman produced a long report which covers some four pages. No attempt has been made by the opposing creditors to cross-examine this gentleman to show that his conclusion or the data on which he based his conclusion were wrong. Nor did the opposing creditors as they could have done, send their own expert to value the mill and give evidence that the value of the mill was very different from the figure of Rs. 40,000 at which this gentleman had arrived. There is no substance whatever in this objection.