Ramaprasada Rao, J.-The appellant is an insolvent, who was adjudicated as such on his own petition in L.P. No. 31 of 1975 on the file of this Court. The relevant facts which led to this voluntary adjudication may be stated thus: — The insolvent, who was an employee as an officer in the Life Insurance Corporation of India, retired on 22nd September, 1974. Consequent upon his retirement, he received substantial amounts by way of gratuity and provident fund on 3rd January, 1975 and 9th January, 1975 totalling a sum of Rs. 29,746.66. The first respondent, who was admittedly a creditor and who was also his neighbour, apparently being aware of such withdrawals of large funds by the insolvent from his quandom employer, was not satisfied about the voluntary adjudication sought for by the insolvent on 22nd April, 1975. But as law permits a person to assume to himself the badge of insolvency by filing a petition for voluntary adjudication after satisfying the requirements of a debtor’s petition for adjudication, the first respondent cannot successfully challenge such a voluntary act on the part of the insolvent when he came to this Court with his petition ‘for adjudication as such. After the appellant insolvent was so adjudicated, the first respondent took out two applications, Application No. 329 of 1975 in August, 1975 for a direction to the insolvent to deposit into Court the amounts withdrawn by him from his erstwhile employer and concurrently, he also took out an application, Application No. 330 of 1975, to annul the order of adjudication and both the applications came up before Suryamurthy, J. The learned Judge dismissed Application No. 330 of 1975 under which the first respondent sought for annulment of the order of adjudication, but allowed Application No. 329 of 1975 and gave direction to the insolvent, who is the appellant herein, to bring into Court a sum of Rs. 29,000 received by him as provident fund, gratuity and other retirement benefits from the Life Insurance Corporation of India. The learned Judge examined the insolvent and he was not satisfied that the insolvent was not possessed of the funds, which his creditor wanted him to bring to Court for the benefit of the body of creditors. He would disbelieve R.W. 1, who claims that he has spent out all such moneys by betting on horses and ultimately, he expressed the view that R.W. 1 has suppressed the entire cash of Rs. 29,000 which he received from the Life Insurance Corporation of India. It was in those circumstances he directed the insolvent to deposit the sum of Rs. 29,000 received by him as provident fund, gratuity etc. As against this order, the insolvent, who was the first respondent in Application No. 329 of 1975, has presented this appeal.

2. It is common ground that the creditor who invoked the jurisdiction of the Court in the above proceedings has not challenged the order of the learned Judge in Application No. 330 of 1975 under which he dismissed the application to annul the order of adjudication. In these circumstances, it is for consideration whether the insolvency Court as such, can act at the instance of a single creditor and give directions to the insolvent in the manner the learned Judge did.

3. It has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court and the Privy Council (vide Chhatrapat Singh Dugar v. Kharag Singh Lachmiram1 and Karmegam v. Jayaseelam Chettiar2), that the expression of inability by the debtor to pay his debts cannot lightly be disregarded by Courts on a priori considerations and refuse relief to the debtor, who seeks for being adjudicated voluntarily as an insolvent, provided the other conditions for the filing of a debtor’s petition either under Presidency Towns Insolvency Act or under the Provincial Insolvency Act are satisfied. The ratio behind the principle as above appears to be that if a person seeks the assistance of Court, but through the channel of law, for being badged as an insolvent on the ground that he is unable to pay his creditors

Click Here to Read the rest of this document