RAMMUL DAYALMUL Vs. MEGH RAJ GUNGA BUX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Rule, taken out by the adjudicated insolvent, calling upon the opposing creditor to show cause why the adjudication order should not be set aside.

(2.) Two questions have been raised in this matter. The first point is that the petition itself does not sufficiently follow the wording of Section 9 of the Act and is not in accordance with the authorities. Mr. Strangman relied upon the case of Abu Haji Suleman V/s. Haji Jan Mahomed 8 Bom. L.R. 648--the judgment of the Court of Appeal--which I followed in another Insolvency matter, No. 213 of 1906. The first point to notice is the wording of the present petition.

(3.) Now, as observed in the Court of Appeal judgment in Ex parte Coates (1877) 5 Ch. D. 979, 982 by James L.J., "This is really not a mere matter of form. The Act says you must tell the debtor what the act of bankruptcy is which you allege against him, so that he may have an opportunity of contesting it in the first instance." In that case, it is to be observed, the petition said that the debtor had departed from his dwelling house or otherwise absented himself and Bacon C.J. in his graphic way says at page 980: "The fact of the debtor having departed from his dwelling house in itself announces nothing. He may have gone to bury his wife, or his mother, or to a meet of foxhounds." It is obvious, therefore, that the petition in that case was very different from the wording of the petition here, and the same remark applies to the case before me, in which I followed the judgment of the Court of Appeal to which I have already referred.