IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
M.N. Shukla, B.D. Agarwal, JJ.
Mansa Ram and Sons (Bankers) and Others – Appellants
Versus
Janki Dass Om Prakash and Others – Respondents
F.A.F.O. No. 545 of 1976
Decided On : 09-04-1984
PROVINCIAL INSOLVENCY ACT, 1920 - SECTION 6(C), 6(E), 9(1) - LIMITATION ACT, 1963 - ARTICLE 21, 22 - PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932 - SECTION 18, 20 - BANKING - DEPOSIT - ACKNOWLEDGMENT - ACT OF INSOLVENCY - FIRM - ADJUDICATION OF INSOLVENCY - LIMITATION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, creditors of a partnership firm, filed an insolvency petition against the firm and its partners under Section 9(1) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, alleging that the firm had committed an act of insolvency by selling certain immovable properties in execution of a decree within three months preceding the petition. The firm and its partners contested the petition, arguing that the debts were barred by limitation, the claim was premature, and that the firm had sufficient assets to pay its debts. The Insolvency Judge adjudicated the firm and its partners insolvent.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the debts were not barred by limitation as the limitation period for return of deposits commenced from the date of demand and was governed by Article 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The court also held that the claim was not premature as the deposits were payable at a certain future time and were covered by Section 9(1)(b) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920. The court further held that the sale of immovable properties in execution of a decree constituted an act of insolvency under Section 6(e) of the Act and that the firm and its partners had not established that they were able to pay their debts. The court also found that one of the partners, who was the widow of a deceased partner, was also a partner at the time of the insolvency petition and could be adjudicated insolvent.
Issues: 1. Whether the debts were barred by limitation? 2. Whether the claim was premature? 3. Whether the firm and its partners committed an act of insolvency? 4. Whether the firm and its partners were able to pay their debts? 5. Whether the widow of a deceased partner could be adjudicated insolvent?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The limitation period for return of deposits commenced from the date of demand and was governed by Article 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which applies to money deposited under an agreement that it shall be payable on demand. 2. The deposits were payable at a certain future time and were covered by Section 9(1)(b) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920, which allows a creditor to present an insolvency petition against a debtor where the debt is a liquidated sum payable either immediately or at some certain future time. 3. The sale of immovable properties in execution of a decree constituted an act of insolvency under Section 6(e) of the Act, which provides that a debtor commits an act of insolvency if any of his property has been sold in execution of the decree of any court for the payment of money. 4. The firm and its partners did not establish that they were able to pay their debts, as they had heavy outstanding liabilities, including income tax and various other dues. 5. The widow of a deceased partner was also a partner at the time of the insolvency petition and could be adjudicated insolvent, as she had been taken in as a partner after the death of her husband.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs.
B.D. Agarwal, J.
This is an appeal u/s 75(2) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) directed against the order of the Insolvency Judge, Dehra Dun, dated April 22, 1976.
2. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 presented the petition giving rise to this appeal as creditors u/s 9(1) of the Act on July 20, 1971. Appellant No. 1 is a registered partnership firm of which, appellant No. 2 is a partner. M/s. Mansa Ram & Sons was a registered partnership firm carrying on extensive business as bankers. Its partners were Mahabir Pershad and his four sons, namely, Chander Sen, Kailash Chand, Moti Lal and Sri Mander Dass. Chander Sen died on August 5, 1953, whereupon his widow Smt. Madan Kumari (Sundari) Jain, respondent No. 3, was taken in as partner. Mahabir Pd. died in the year 1960. Respondents Nos. 6 to 9 are also his heirs. The death of Sri Mander Dass has taken place on October 24. 1976. The respondent creditors had the following deposits with M/s. Mansa Ram & Sons:-
I.
Fixed Deposit Account
Deposit of Rs. 10,300/-
dated 7th July. 1954, for the period of July 5, 1954 to July 5, 1955 carrying interest @ 3% p.a.
II.
Fixed Deposit Account
Deposit of Rs. 13,390/-
dated 7th July, 1954, for the period of August I, 1954 to August 1. 1955 carrying interest @ 3% p.a.
III.
Current Account
Deposit of Rs. 10,000/-
dated March 18, 1955 and of Rs. 15/- dated March 22. 1955 bearing interest @ 6% p. a.
IV.
Savings Bank Account
Balance of Rs. 708/4/-
dated April 2, 1955 in the account commencing on March 24, 1954.
The deposits mentioned at items I to III aforesaid were made by respondent No. 1, that is to say, the firm Janki Dass Om Prakash, and the deposit at Item No. IV was made by Om Prakash, respondent No. 2, who is a partner of this firm. The deposits were acknowledged from time to time. Respondent No. 2 made demand of the amount due under these deposits in the month of July. 1971 at Dehra Dun, but the appellants Nos. 2, 4 and Sri Mander Dass deceased, the Managing partners of the firm, Mnnsa Ram & Sons, expressed inability to pay. The payment of their debts was suspended. On June 2, 1971, certain immovable properties of the firm Mansa Ram & Sons were sold in execution of the decree passed in O. S. No. 82 of 1957 (Ex. Case No. 33 of 1970). The judgment-debtors did not raise any objection and the auction sale held in execution was confirmed by the execution Court on July 3, 1971. Despite notice and the opportunity repeatedly given the appellants or the pro forma respondents did not put in objections to the petition made by the respondent creditors. Time was obtained on various dales to put in objections; the Courts below granted time on several occasions, but no objections came to be filed nor were the costs paid. The appellants did not adduce any evidence either. The Official Receiver was appointed interim receiver by the Insolvency Judge under order dated October 1, 1971.
3. The appellants were adjudged insolvents under the impugned order finding that under the law a firm can also be adjudged insolvent upon the requisite conditions being satisfied. The respondents before the Insolvency Judge were found to be creditors and it was also found that the appellants had committed an act of insolvency inasmuch as the immovable properties had been sold in execution of a decree within three months immediately preceding the petition. Respondent No. 3 was also found to be a partner of the firm subsequent to the demise of her husband and it was held further that the respondent Nos. 6 to 9 were not the partners and hence there was no question to adjudge them as insolvents.
4. Shri Radha Krishna, learned counsel for the appellants, urged that the appellants have not committed any act of insolvency. The debts referred to by the respondent creditors are barred by
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.