Skip to content


Net Ram Vs. Bhagirath Lal and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1918All368; 43Ind.Cas.160
AppellantNet Ram
RespondentBhagirath Lal and ors.
Excerpt:
provincial insolvency act (iii of 1907), section 15 - petition, dismiss of, grounds for. - 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 judgment 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.....
Judgment:

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 judgment 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 Chatrapat Singh Dugar v. Kharag Singh Lachmiram 39 Ind. Cas. 788 : 15 A.L.J. 87 : 21 M.L.T. 36 : (1917) M.W.N. 100 : 32 M.L.J. 1 : 19 Bom. L.R. 174 : 25 C.L.J. 215 : 21 C.W.N. 497 : 10 Bur L.T. 25 : 41 C. 535 (P.C.) and also to the case of, Tirloki Nath v. Badri Das 23 Ind. Cas. 4 : 36 A. 250 : 12 A.L.J. 355. 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 in the other side and respondent No. 7 has not been served.


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