IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Shah, J.
Appellants: Mokshamadanlal
Versus
Respondent: Hariprasad Vishnuprasad
Civil Revn. Appln. No. 474 of 1955
Decided On: 30.01.1956
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: V.T. Gambhirwala, Adv.
For Respondents/Defendant: B.G. Thakore, Adv. And Desai Desai Co. Attorneys
PROVINCIAL INSOLVENCY ACT - SECTION 9 - CONDITIONS FOR FILING INSOLVENCY PETITION - PERIOD OF LIMITATION OR CONDITION PRECEDENT - SECTION 14 OF THE LIMITATION ACT - APPLICABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
A creditor filed an insolvency petition against the respondent more than three months after the act of insolvency occurred. The Insolvency Court at Broach returned the petition for presentation to the proper court. The petitioner presented the petition to the Insolvency Court at Borivli, which held that the petition was filed within the prescribed period by excluding the time spent in the Broach Court under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. The District Court reversed the order, holding that Section 9(1)(c) of the Provincial Insolvency Act prescribed a condition precedent and not a period of limitation.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Section 9(1)(c) of the Provincial Insolvency Act prescribed a condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction by the Insolvency Court and not a period of limitation. The court further held that Section 14 of the Limitation Act did not apply to petitions for adjudication under the Provincial Insolvency Act.
Issues: Whether Section 9(1)(c) of the Provincial Insolvency Act prescribed a period of limitation or a condition precedent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted Section 9(1)(c) of the Provincial Insolvency Act as prescribing a condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction by the Insolvency Court. The court reasoned that the language used in the provision indicated that the Legislature intended to prescribe a condition that must be fulfilled before a creditor could present an insolvency petition. The court also noted that the proviso added to Section 9(1)(c) by Act III of 1950, which allowed for the extension of the three-month period in certain circumstances, supported the view that the provision prescribed a condition precedent rather than a period of limitation.
Final Decision: The court discharged the rule issued in the revision petition and upheld the order of the District Court dismissing the insolvency petition.
1. One Chhotubhai obtained a decree against the respondent for Rs. 559-5-6 in Civil Suit No. 120 of 1939 of the file of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Broach. The decree was passed on 17-11-1939. The decree was assigned by the decree-holder Chhotubhai to the petitioner. The petitioner as assignee of the decree filed, on 5-12-1950, an application in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Broach, exercising Insolvency jurisdiction for serving a notice of insolvency upon the respondent under Section 6A of the Provincial Insolvency Act.
The respondent failed to comply with the notice within one month. The Insolvency Court at Broach passed an order on 23-2-1951, "holding that an act of insolvency had been committed by the respondent. The petitioner then applied on 23-4-1951 by Miscellaneous Application No. 2 of 1951 to the Insolvency Court at Broach for an order adjudicating the respondent an insolvent.
The respondent appeared in answer to the notice and contended that the Court at Broach had no Jurisdiction to adjudicate him insolvent. The Insolvency Court at Broach accepted the contention of the respondent and by order dated 14-11-1951 ordered that the petition be returned for presentation to the proper court. On 15-11-1951, the petitioner presented the petition to the Court of the Civil Judge, (Junior Division), at Borivli, Bombay Suburban District.
The respondent contended that the petition filed against him in the Borivli Court did not comply with the conditions prescribed by Section 9 of the Provincial Insolvency Act and the Court had no jurisdiction to adjudicate him insolvent. The learned Insolvency Judge heard the objection relating to jurisdiction as a preliminary issue and by order dated 24-10-1952, held that the Court had jurisdiction to adjudicate the respondent insolvent even though the petition was filed in the Borivli Court more than three months after the act of insolvency on which the petition was grounded had occurred.
In so holding, the learned Insolvency Judge relied upon Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act and held that the time spent in the Broach Court was liable to be excluded, in computing the period of three months, and if the time was so excluded, the petition complied with the condition prescribed by Section 9 (1) (c) of the Provincial Insolvency Act.
In other words the learned Insolvency Judge held that the period prescribed by Section 9 (1) (c) was a period of limitation and Section 14 of the Limitation Act applied to applications for adjudication.
2. The respondent preferred an appeal to the District Court at Thana and the District Judge reversed, the order passed by the Insolvency Judge. The learned District Judge held that the period prescribed by Section 9 (1) (c) was not a period of limitation and the petition not having complied strictly with the requirements of Section 9 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, was liable to be rejected.
The learned District Judge accepted the contention of the Respondent that institution of proceedings within the period prescribed by Section 9 (1) (c) was a condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction by the Insolvency Court. The learned Judge set aside the order of adjudication and dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner. The petitioner has applied to this Court in revision under Section 75 of the Provincial Insolvency Act.
3. Section 9 of the Provincial Insolvency Act prescribed "conditions on which a creditor may petition" for adjudicating his debtor an insolvent. Sub-section (1) of Section 9 states :
"9. (1) A creditor shall not be entitled to present an insolvency petition against a debtor unless-
(a) the debt owing by the debtor to the creditor, or, if two or more creditors join in the petition, the aggregate amount of debts owing to such creditors, amounts to five hundred rupees, and
(b) the debt is a liquidated sum payable either immediately or at some certain future time, and
(c) the act of insolvency on which the peti
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.