A provision in the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act allowing adjudication for non-payment of a debt after 21 days of attachment is not discriminatory and violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution as it is based on a just, rational, and reasonable classification.

PANCHAPAKESA AYYAR, J. :- This is an appeal against the order of Balakrishna Ayyar, J., adjudicating the appellant, Mohamed Zackeria firm, by sole proprietor Mohamed Zackeria, insolvent under the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act as he did not pay the debt of about Rs. 3000 due to the first respondent, V. Srinivasan and Co., on dealings, despite the attachment of his house in Madras remaining in force for 21 days.

The appellant had urged before Balakrishna Ayyar, J., that he was worth nearly a lakh of rupees and that his debts did not amount to even one-fourth of that amount, and that it would be improper to adjudicate him insolvent when he could easily pay off all his debts. He had represented that he had Rs. 80,000 worth of property in Vaniyambadi, in the shape of a house and tannery, and some movable property besides. Balakrishna Ayyar, J., was not impressed by this argument.

Not only the debt of Rs. 3,000 due to the first respondent, but also a small decree debt of Rs. 400, had remained unpaid though four years had passed. The appellant also urged before Balakrishna Ayyar, J., two other arguments. The first was that he could not be adjudicated insolvent in Madras as he and his firm were carrying on business only at Vaniyambadi. But in view of his admission that he was coming to Madras now and then in connection with his business and was purchasing and selling things here on those occasions and sleeping in a house in Madras, and that he stopped his business in Madras only on 15-7-1954 and had not sold even a single square foot of leather (his trade is in leather) since then, Balakrishna Ayyar, J., considered that he was doing business in Madras actively purchasing and selling things till 15th July 1954, and that under the ruling of a Bench of this court in Gokaldoss Govardhandoss v. Parry and Co. ILR 48 Mad 795 : (AIR 1925 Mad 1249) (A), his firm should be deemed to be "carrying on business" within the meaning of S. 11 (d) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act so long as its business debts remained undischarged.

In the present case the debt due to the first respondent was a business debt contracted before 15th July 1954, at Madras, and therefore the learned Judge held that the appellant could be adjudicated insolvent here under the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act.

2. The next contention urged before Balakrishna Ayyar, J., by the appellant was that under clause (e) of S. 9 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, it is sufficient cause for adjudicating a person insolvent if his property remains under attachment for a period of twenty one days, whereas under S. 6 (e) of the Provincial Insolvency Act the attached property of the debtor has to be sold in execution of a decree for the payment of money before the transaction can be considered to be an act of insolvency, and that this would amount to discrimination, and a denial of equality before the law and the benefit of equal laws to persons residing in or carrying on business within the presidency towns. Balakrishna Ayyar, J., rejected this argument by observing :

"Persons outside the presidency towns live and trade and buy and sell under conditions very different from those obtaining in the presidency towns. The entire economical structure and the tempo of life are different. The distinction between the provisions is therefore one which can be traced to a just, regional (rational?) and reasonable classification." In the end, he adjudicated the firm insolvent. Hence this appeal.

3. We have perused the records, and heard Mr. Jayachandra Naidu, the learned counsel for the appellant. He adduced the same three contentions before us. Firstly, he contended that the appellant firm never carried on any business at Madras even before 15th July 1954, in which case alone the ruling in ILR 48 Mad 795 : (AIR 1925 Mad 1249) (A) would apply. According to him, the sole proprietor of the appellant firm, Mohamed Zackeria, had loosely stated that he was visiting Madras now and then and purchas