GANPAT Vs. HARIGIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 9th August 1924 one Woman, a creditor, applied to have Suryabhan adjudged insolvent. On 7th April 1925 the insolvency Court held that 'Suryabhan had committed an act of insolvency and declared him an insolvent, and ordered him to apply for discharge within six months, i.e. by 7th September 1925. On 18th April 1925 Waman applied for the annulment of a sale by the debtor in favour of one Ganpat and Chandrabhan, dated the 17th May 1924, and on 24th October 1925 Waman applied for extension of the time for discharge. But on 20th March 1926 both these applications were withdrawn. On the same day another creditor Bhuralal asked that the applications be continued and on 17th April 1926 an application was filed by other creditors asking that the sale be set aside. The insolvency Court annulled the adjudication on 17th July 1926. The adjudication was annulled on the ground that the insolvent had not applied for his discharge within six months.

(2.) ON appeal the lower appellate Court held that the insolvency Court had power under Section 27, Insolvency Act, to extend time to apply for discharge even after the period allowed had elapsed: Abraham v. Sookias A.I.R. 1924 Gal. 777. Further, holding that the Insolvency Court should have extended the time to see that justice was done, the lower appellate Court set aside the order annulling the adjudication of the insolvent and directed that Court to proceed with the creditors' applications to have the sale set aside and the time extended. Against that order the present appeal has been filed.

(3.) GREAT reliance is placed by the appellant on the case of Tirumala Reddi Ghin-nappa Reddi v. Kolakula Thomasu Beddi A.I.R. 1928 Mad. 265 a case which lays down that the Court has no power to extend the time after the period specified in the order. There are many cases which hold the contrary; for instance Abraham v. Sookias A.I.R. 1924 Gal. 777, which hold that the Court has power under Section 27, Clause (2), Prov Insol. Act to extend the time to apply for discharge even after the expiry of the period of the order for discharge; and the Full Bench case of Gopal Ram v. Magni Ram A.I.R. 1928 Pat. 338. I prefer to follow these cases in place of the Madras case. The law seems to be that the annulment of adjudication does not ipso facto come into operation without an express order of the Court to that effect under Section 43 of the Act. In the present case,-therefore, the insolvency Court had the power to extend the time for discharge.