JUDGMENT- M.S. RANE, J. :---The appellants - State Bank of India decree-holder and as a result of non compliance of the decree in their favour, they initiated action against the Judgment-debtor under the Provisions of Presidency-Town Insolvency Act, 1909 (hereinafter referred to as the said "Act") and as a step therein, the Court issued a notice to the Judgment-debtor under the provisions of the said Act. The notice in question which the appellants got issued, there was a mis-description of the Judgment-debtor. This aspect was highlighted and focused by the Judgment-debtor before the Insolvency Court and the judgment-debtor objected that the process issued against him was illegal by moving an application by way of Notice of Motion. The Insolvency Court which heard the said application of the Judgment-debtor found favour with the objection raised by and on behalf of the Judgment-debtor and struck down the Insolvency Notice by Judgment dated 4th October, 1994 which is impugned in this appeal.

2.We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned Judgment of this appeal and also the other related record being part of this appeal paper book.

3.The correct name of the Judgment-debtor is "Sohanlal Chunilal Jain". However, in the Insolvency Notice which the appellants got issued, the Judgment-debtor was described as "Sohanlal Babulal Jain". It would thus be noticed that the name of the father of the Judgment-debtor was wrongly mentioned.

4.It appears that the appellants sought to rectify the mistake in the name by moving a separate application. However, the Insolvency Court did not entertain the said application noting that the Court cannot take cognizance thereon.

5.Mr. Shah, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the Insolvency Court ought to have allowed the application of the appellants for the amendment of the name of the Judgment-debtor. He submits that such amendment can be permissible and should have been allowed.

6.On careful consideration of the submissions advanced across the bar and on going through the impugned Judgment of this appeal, we do not find any reason to take a different view than what the Insolvency Court has taken.

7.The insolvency proceedings are of a quasi penal nature. The same invite serious consequences. If anyone is adjudged as insolvent then he suffers a social death as such. It adversely affects his status/reputation in the society. That being the position, there are elaborate and meticulous provisions made in the said Presidency Town Insolvency Act and the rules made thereunder. The manner in which the processes are to be issued and served, have been clearly provided therein. It is therefore imperative that the provisions of law in such proceedings are strictly adhered to and complied with.

8.It has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of (Shapurji Ruttonji others v. Byramji Muncherji others)1, reported in A.I.R. (32)1945 Bombay 165, that the proceedings adopted under the provisions of the Insolvency Act have quasi penal consequences and, therefore, they should be construed strictly and the Judgment-debtor would be entitled to raise all technical pleas in defence of such processes. In the said decision the character and capacity of the addressee of the insolvency notice was not spelt out although his name was correctly mentioned. Yet the Division Bench annulled the notice.

9.It, therefore, clearly emerges that the proceedings before the Insolvency Court are of a distinct and special type and the same cannot be generally equated and compared with other proceedings in suits. The Insolvency Act itself provides for the service of proper notices in a prescribed form. Even if there is a slightest lacuna in compliance with issuance of such processes, the Court has to extend benefit in favour of the addressee of such processes.

10.Coming to the present case, it is noticed that the notice in question has been wrongly addressed and got issued to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document