N. R. CHATTERJEA, CUMING
Satish Chandra Addya – Appellant
Versus
Firm Raj Narain Pakhira and Rasik Lal Pakhira BR Rasi Lal Pakhira @APPELLANT – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. These two appeals arise out of proceedings under the Provincial Insolvency Act.
2. An application was made by one of the creditors for declaring the debtors (who are four out of five members of a firm, the fifth being a minor) insolvent. Some of the other creditors opposed the application on various grounds. The learned, District Judge dismissed the application on several grounds. After the application had teen disposed of, four of the debtors made an application for being declared insolvents. This also was rejected by the Court below on the ground, among others, that they had not proved their inability to pay their debts. These two appeals are against these two orders. We propose to deal first of all with Miscellaneous Appeal No. 378 of 1922 which deals with applications of the four debtors to be declared insolvents.
3. It appears that one of the debtors, Rasik Lal, was examined and he stated that the debts amounted to over Rs. 1,06,600 and that they were unable to pay their debts; and there is a report of the Receiver which states that the value of the Rice Mill would be about Rs. 30,000 only.
4. The learned District Judge, however, in arriving at the conclusion that the
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.