Mack, J.- This is an appeal by V.P. Madhavan Nambiar, second Judgment-debtor in E.P. 234 of 1951, against an order by the Principal Subordinate Judge of Kozhikode directing his arrest and commitment to prison, on findings that he dishonestly transferred, concealed or removed assets after the institution of the suit and furthermore, that he had means to pay at any rate a substantial portion of the decretal amount since the date of the decree.

The antecedent history is briefly this. The decree-holder is the Chaldean Syrian Bank, Ltd., who gave financial accommodation to a concern called United Merchants which commenced in 1948 and did business in timber, banking and so on. It fell into difficulties and the managing partner committed suicide in March, 1949. The appellant who was one of the partners filed an application, Exhibit A-1 for over-draft accommodation to the Chaldean Syrian Bank to the extent of Rs.50,000 on the strength of which the Bank Manager of the local branch gave the firm financial accommodation. According to the evidence of the Secretary of the Bank, P.W.1, the head office took exception to this and dismissed the Branch Manager from service. The decree under execution by the bank in E.P. 234 of 1951 was in O.S.7 of 1949 for the recovery of Rs.9,000 which with interest had increased to Rs.12,600. The bank filed another suit, shortly afterwards, O.S.14 of 1949, for the recovery of Rs.36,000 and obtained a decree against the partners. In E.P. 420 of 1950, in O.S.14 of 1949, they first sought to arrest three of the partners including the appellant. That petition was dismissed by the same learned Subordinate Judge on 31st June, 1951, as he was satisfied on the material placed before him, that none of the respondents had means to pay off the decree debt or even a substantial portion of it. Despite the dismissal of that execution petition, the bank pressed for the arrest of the appellant in execution of the smaller decree in O.S.7 of 1949 and placed more material before the Court. The learned Subordinate Judge quite rightly held that the previous order in E.P. 420 of 1951 did not operate as res judicata.

The appellant in an application to the bank, Exhibit A-1 dated 21st February, 1948, said he belonged to a tarwad owning property worth 2½ lakhs to 3 lakhs The value of this tarwad property was not disputed, but it was contended that he cannot get a separate share or enforce any partition during his mother’s lifetime. But under the Madras Marumakkathayam Act he was entitled to separate maintenance from the tarwad. The amount, if any, of such separate maintenance, he did not disclose. He was admittedly living at Kozhikode, away from his tarwad, working as an insurance agent and said that he was earning about Rs.110 a month by way of commission. Then in his own application Exhibit A-1, he gave particulars of assets valued at Rs.50,000. They included fixed deposit in the Town Bank of Rs.15,000, Rs.14,500 in the Town Bank Kuri or chit fund and so on. His explanation for the disappearance of the assets in Exhibit A-1 is merely to the effect that they were withdrawn by him and invested in the business of United Merchants. He was not able, however, to prove by the production of any voucher, receipt or account the fact that he invested these moneys in this business. The learned Subordinate Judge appears to have quite rightly rejected this unsatisfactory explanation.

The appellant then further admitted that he had his own banking business till the end of 1948 and that the annual outturn was about Rs.25,000 but he said that he had never maintained accounts either for this or for a timber business he bad previously. Finally the appellant admitted that he discharged an overdraft account with the Nedungadi Bank upto Rs.75,000 before March, 1948. The learned Judge made a note in the examination of the appellant that his demeanour was highly questionable and substantially disbelieved his evidence. In Exhibit A-1 he described himself as M

Click Here to Read the rest of this document