An act of abuse of the process of Court.

S. RAMACHANDRA IYER, C.J. :- These appeals are filed under Cl. 15 of the Letters Patent against the judgment of Ganapatia Pillai J. adjudicating the appellants in the appeals as insolvents on a petition presented by one of their creditors, namely, the first respondent. There is no dispute now that the debtors had committed an act of insolvency. But the petition for adjudication was resisted on the ground that the debtors were in a position to pay their debts, and, even otherwise, the petition was liable to be dismissed as an abuse of process of court. The learned judge has overruled the Objections. The short question before us is whether the debtors are well founded in their contention that the petition for adjudication should be dismissed under S. 13(4) (b) of the Presidency-Towns Insolvency Act. The material proportion of the section runs :

The Court shall dismiss the petition (a) ..........(b) if the debtor appears and satisfies the court that he is able to pay his debts or that he has not committed an act of insolvency or that for other sufficient cause no order ought to be made."

In Nagiah v. Satyanarayana, ILR (1944) Mad 21: (AIR 1943 Mad 355), a Bench of this Court has held that where an insolvency petition was presented by a creditor not bona fide with a view that the debtors assets should be distributed proportionately amongst his creditors, but with the object of bringing the latter to insolvency court, the petition will amount to an abuse of the process of the Court and the court will have the power to refuse to make an order of adjudication notwithstanding the fact that the petition was well-founded. There can be little doubt that the words "other sufficient cause" in S. 13(4) (b) should be interpreted in the widest possible manner and not ejusdem generis in relation to the earlier clauses in section. Adjudication of a debtor as insolvent changes his status, vests his entire property in the Official Assignee and limits his capacity to do business or even acquire property. Under S. 12 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act a debtor would be liable to be adjudicated insolvent by an unsecured creditor having a claim for more than Rs. 500, if the former had committed an act of insolvency within three months of the petition. But the right of such a creditor to adjudicate the debtor a bankrupt is not a weapon available to him to be used to serve any ulterior purpose or to be used vindictively. If the object of the adjudication is not the result of a genuine desire to have the property of the debtor administered in insolvency, but one solely with a view to disgrace him or to utilise the machinery of court for other purposes, the petition cannot be said to be a bona fide one. S. 13 gives power to the court in those cases to dismiss it.

2. Now, what are the facts which led up to the filing of the petition in the present case? Ramalinga and Nataraja along with another were liable to the first respondent in a sum of Rs. 24,000 under a compromise decree passed on 4-11-1955 in C. S. No. 1572 of 1955 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras. The decree provided that, while the immoveable properties of the debtors could be attached forthwith, the properties of Ramalinga should not be brought to sale before 4-5-1955. But that restriction has no significance to the question that arises in this case, as the period had expired before the decree-holder began to take steps. The first respondent and Ramalinga, the first debtor, were trustees of the Sendana Vinayagar Temple, Saidapet. The former appears to have improperly sold some of the granite stones purchased for the temple, but, before he could effect any delivery to the purchaser, Ramalinga and certain other residents of the locality moved in the matter and prevented the diversion of temple property. This unworthy conduct of the first respondent has been referred to in the counter affidavit filed in opposition to the application for adjudication and the same has not been c