The amendments to Section 36 and Section 7 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act limited the jurisdiction of the insolvency court to make orders for payment of debts disputed by garnishees and gave the court discretion to decide simple money demands, but only in cases capable of easy and speedy proof.

Coutts-Trotter, C.J.

1. I have had the advantage in this case of perusing the judgment about to be delivered by Beasley, J. It sums up the results arrived at after a long discussion between him, Odgers and myself and it may be taken to be the judgment of the Court. I only add a few words because I feel it is incumbent upon me to do so as for 8 years I was in charge of the insolvency jurisdiction of the original side of the High Court. The procedure which was prohibited by the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Jnanendra Bala Debi v. Official Assignee of Calcutta A.I.R. 1926 Cal. 597 was that persons alleged to be indebted to the bankrupt estate-known in our Court for some reason, I never quite understood, as "garnishees" should be examined, which of course in effect means cross-examined, by the Official Assignee under the powers of Section 36 and that statements made by them not amounting to a definite admission of indebtedness to the estate should be used under Section 7 to ask the Court there and then to pass a decree against the garnishees on the ground that though they are not tantamount to direct admissions they were available as evidence to show that their answer to the claim put forward by the Official Assignee was untrue. That procedure, in my opinion, was not only rightly denounced by the Calcutta High Court but is definitely prohibited by the statute as amended. That is sufficient to uphold the judgment of Waller, J., and dismiss this appeal.

2. But a much wider question was argued and I think it would be wrong for us not to express our opinion upon it. It was said on the authority of the English cases cited by my learned brother that, where a debt was not admitted, being a debt as to which the Official Assignee stood in no higher position by reason of the special provisions of the Bankruptcy law than the debtor himself, the matter could not be tried within the jurisdiction of the insolvency Court. That is the law in England I do not question. I do not think it is, or was intended to be, the law in India under the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act. It is obvious that the Indian statute aims at relieving the Official Assignee in charge of a bankrupt estate in suitable cases from incurring the heavy burdens of the institution fees which would necessarily be incurred if he were compelled in all cases to have recourse to ordinary suits: see Section 115 of the Act. I am quite content to leave it as a matter of discretion to the learned Judges as to whether in any given case he should deal with such a claim in the insolvency Court here or refer it to the machinery of an ordinary suit. It must be remembered that the Court-fees of an ordinary suit in England are very small and that no inconvenience is caused and no obstruction is put in the way of the Bankrupt estate by confining the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy Court to claims where the title of the trustee of the bankrupt estate stands on a higher footing than would have been the case if the debtor had been suing himself. In India it is quite a different matter and in many cases it would be quite impossible to obtain a sum out of such estate as is actually in the hands of the Official Assignee sufficient to institute proceedings for the recovery of outstanding debts though the Official Assignees claim may be a perfectly good one. I am quite content that it should be left to the Judge in insolvency to decide on the balance of covenience whether it is best to try such cases himself, or to relegate their disposal to the ordinary Courts; and that is a discretion which, when exercised by him, an appellate Court would interfere with only on grounds which are well-known and must necessarily be of rare occurrence. It is quite easy for the Judge who tries the summons to insist upon the Official Assignee giving to the other side what is in effect a pleading giving detailed particulars of the nature of his claim and to give full discovery of documents if that is sought for.