Skip to content


Netram Vs. Bhagirath Sah and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1918)ILR40All75
AppellantNetram
RespondentBhagirath Sah and ors.
Excerpt:
act no. iii of 1907 (provincial insolvency act), sections 5, 15 and 16 - insolvency--grounds for dismissing petition to be adjudged an insolvent. - .....pramada charan banerji, j.1. this appeal arises out of an application made by the appellant to the district judge of meerut to be adjudicated an insolvent. it is not very clear from the judgement of the learned district judge upon what grounds he rejected the application. section 5 of the provincial insolvency act provides that where a debtor commits an act of insolvency a petition for adjudication may be presented by a creditor or by the debtor. the presentation of a petition to be declared insolvent is deemed to be an act of insolvency within the meaning of the section. section 15 (1) mentions certain matters which will justify the court in dismissing the petition of insolvency. section 16 (1) provides that where a petition is not dismissed for any of the matters mentioned in section.....
Judgment:

Henry Richards, C.J. and Pramada Charan Banerji, J.

1. This appeal arises out of an application made by the appellant to the District Judge of Meerut to be adjudicated an insolvent. It is not very clear from the judgement of the learned District Judge upon what grounds he rejected the application. Section 5 of the Provincial Insolvency Act provides that where a debtor commits an act of insolvency a petition for adjudication may be presented by a creditor or by the debtor. The presentation of a petition to be declared insolvent is deemed to be an act of insolvency within the meaning of the section. Section 15 (1) mentions certain matters which will justify the court in dismissing the petition of insolvency. Section 16 (1) provides that where a petition is not dismissed for any of the matters mentioned in Section 15 the court shall make an order of adjudication. It would, therefore, appear that the court is only justified in refusing an order of adjudication in the cases prescribed by the Act. So far as we have been able to understand the order of the District Judge, he dismissed the application because he thought that it was necessary that the brother, of Net Ram, who was joint with him, should have joined in the application. The concluding words of the order are 'at present I reject the dishonest application of Net Ram as premature.' We may refer to the recent decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council in the case of Chhatrapat Singh Dugar v. Kharay Singh Lachmiram (1917) 15 A. L. J., 87. and also to the case of Triloki Nath v. Badri Das (1913) I. L. R., 36 All., 250. We allow the appeal, set aside the order of the learned District Judge and remand the case to him with directions to re-enter the application in the list of pending cases and proceed to hear and determine the same according to law. We make no order as to costs. No one appears on the other side and respondent No. 7 has not been served.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //