JUDGMENT - Chagla, C.J.

1. A creditors petition was presented for adjudicating the appellants insolvents on 3-12-1951. This petition was dismissed on 1-4-1952. On 11-10-1952, the respondents applied to the Insolvency Judge to set aside the order of dismissal and to substitute them in place o£ the petitioning creditors. The Insolvency Judge granted that application on 6-1-1953, and from that order this appeal is preferred.

2. The first contention of Mr. Desai is that the Court had no jurisdiction to grant this application in view of the fact that the application for substitution was made after the petition was dismissed, and reliance is placed on Section 92, Frssidency-towns Insolvency Act. That section provides that "Whore the petitioner docs not proceed with due diligence on his petition, the Court may substitute as petitioner any other creditor to whom the debtor is indebted in the amount required by this Act in place of a petitioning creditor." Mr. Desai is right when he contends that Section 92 refers only to a subsisting petition, and that the order of substitution conanplated by that section can only be made in a petition which is pending before the Court. But in our opinion t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document