(MAHARAJ) KISHORE KHANNA Vs. NETHERLANDS TRADING SOCIETY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In my opinion, this appeal fails except that it gives this Court an opportunity to amend a very badly drawn order of adjudication which I must regret to see under the seal of this Court. It appears that the debtor had been arrested at the suit of a particular creditor and he was brought before the Court under Section 55, Civil P.C., by way of execution for the enforcement of a money decree. On the day in question the facts are that he appeared by learned Counsel Mr. Moore. The other learned Counsel was Mr. Surita appearing for the decree-holder, one Annada Prasad Chatterjee, When the case was called on, it seems that the defendant being produced in the custody of the Sheriff's Officer, Mr. Moore, counsel, said that his client wished to apply for adjudication as an insolvent and asked for an order under Section 55, Sub-section (4), Civil P.C. The Court made an order that on his giving, security in Rs. 500 to the satisfaction of the Registrar for filing within one month his petition for adjudication and for his appearance when called on so to do, he would be released and, in default he would be committed to prison. It-would appear that he furnished security and was released. This having happened on 19 July 1929, on 14 September within three months of the date of the order, the present petition in insolvency was filed against him by another creditor. That petition was founded on several acts of insolvency; but only one act of insolvency is now relied upon. The petition set forth that the debtor declared in Court that he would file his petition within one month from 19 July and the petition stated that this amounted to giving to all his creditors notice that ha had suspended payment. That certainly was not notice to the creditors who were not there and who were not interested or concerned in the matter. The affidavit of the debtor in reply appears to contain nothing except irrelevant matters. The learned Judge has carefully considered this question from the point of view of principle and has dealt only in his judgment with the act of bankruptcy just referred to.

(2.) The act of insolvency which concerns us is this: That on the said 19 July 1929, the said debtor declared in Court that ha would file his petition of insolvency within one month from the date which amounted to giving notice to all his creditors that he had suspended payment.

(3.) Now, the first question is whether it, has been shown that, on 19 July the debtor committed an act of insolvency as defined in Section 9, Presidency Towns Insolvency Act in this way: He gives notice to any of his creditors that he has suspended or that he is about to suspend payment of his debts.