Upon annulment of an adjudication under the Provincial Insolvency Act, unrealised assets that were not specifically directed to remain vested in the Court under Section 37 revert to the insolvent and are not available for distribution amongst the creditors.

Choudhary, J.

1. These two appeals arise out of two insolvency proceedings bearing insolvency case Nos. 6 and 13 of 1946, in which Anjabali and Mohibulla, two employees of the Tinplate Company of India Limited, respondent No. 1, hereafter to be referred to as the respondent, had been adjudged insolvents. They had to their credit certain amounts of money in the provident fund of that company. Their creditor, Muktilal Agarwalla, the appellant in these appeals, made applications under Sec. 4 of the Provincial Insolvency Act for directing the respondent and the Trustees of the Provident Fund, respondent No. 2, to place the said sums of money in the hands of the Court for being distributed amongst the creditors, as, according to him, they had vested in the Court as being properties of the insolvents. The two respondents objected to bring the moneys in Court and pleaded that they appertained to a trust fund in the bands of respondent No. 2. It was further pleaded that the amount standing to the credit of the insolvents in the provident fund represented contributions of the respondent and the employees, and they were not the properties of the insolvents over which they had any disposing power, nor were they debts due to the insolvents.

2. The Insolvency Court overruled the objections raised by the respondents by its order dated 26-6-1948 and held that the moneys standing to the credit of the insolvents in A and C accounts of the provident fund were their properties over which they had disposing power and that they were available for distribution amongst the creditors under the Insolvency Act. The above two respondents came up in appeal to this Court, and this Court, on 12th of May, 1950, allowed the appeals and reversed the decisions of the Insolvency Court. The appellant then carried the matter in appeal to the Supreme Court, and that Court, on 14-2-1956, set aside the decision of this Court on the above point and held that the right, title and interest of the insolvents in the moneys standing to their credit in A and C accounts, respectively, will vest in the Official Receiver.

3. It appears that, during the pendency of the appeals in this Court the Insolvency Court passed an order directing the respondent to remit to that Court the provident fund amounts in A and C accounts for distribution to the creditors, but it failed to comply with the above order. On 12-11-1949, in Case No. 13/46 (M.A. 346/56) and on 29-7-1950 in Case No. 6/46 (M.A. 345/56), however, the adjudications were annulled by the Insolvency Court under Section 43 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, as the insolvents did not apply for their discharge within the period specified by the Court, and it Further passed orders purporting to be under Sec.37 of the. Act directing that the assets realised in these cases will remain vested in that Court for payment to the creditors of the insolvents who had proved their debts. It also appears that, during the pendency of the appeals, the insolvents resigned and left the services of the respondent.

4. After the decision of the Supreme Court, the appellant made applications in both the cases on 7-5-1956 for an order directing the respondent to remit to the Insolvency Court the provident fund amounts in A and C accounts of the two insolvents, but the Insolvency Court rejected the applications on 7-7-1956 on the ground that there was no specific order regarding vesting of insolvents A and C accounts of provident fund in that Court nor was there any special direction for continuance of the proceedings in that matter at the time the annulment orders were passed, Being thus aggrieved, the creditor, Muktilal Agarwalla, presented these two appeals in this Court.

5. In support of the appeals, Counsel for the appellant has raised a point that the order of the Insolvency Court, namely, the District Judge of Manbhum-Singhbhum, dated 7-7-1956, rejecting the prayer of the appellant for a direction to the respondent for remitting the amo