PHERUMAL PARASRAM Vs. KAMLABAI PANJUMAL
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Referred Judgements :-
JAGANNATH V. BADRI PRASAD
Click here to view full judgement.
C.V.RANE, J. -
(1.)IT is further argued by the learned advocate for the appellants that as the date of the commission of the act of insolvency has not been specified in the petition as contemplated by sec. 13(2)(a) of the Act the petition is defective and hence no order of adjudication can be made in this case. According to clause (a) of sec. 13(2) of the Act Every insolvency petition presented by a creditor or creditors shall set forth the particulars regarding the debtor specified in clause (b) of sub-sec. (1) and shall also specify the act of insolvency committed by such debtor together with the date of its commission. No such contention was however raised in the trial court. Even in the memorandum of appeal no grievence on the point has been made. If the opponents had raised any such contention in the trial court the petitioners would have been able to amend the petition at proper time. Under these circumstances the appellants cannot be allowed to raise the above point in this appeal. In this connection it should further be remembered that the petitioners are entitled to succeed as soon as they prove that the opponents have committed any of the acts of insolvency enumerated in sec. 6 of the Act within three months before the presentation of the petition as contemplated by sec. 9(1) of the Act. In the present case they have succeeded in doing so. Under these circumstances the petition cannot be rejected only on the ground that the petitioners have not complied with the provisions of sec. 13(2)(a) of the Act especially when it has not been shown that the opponents were in any way embarrassed because of the non-mention of the date of commission of the act of insolvency. If any authority is needed on-the point it is provided by the decision in the case of Jagannath v. Badri Prasad A.I.R. 1949 East Punjab 359. Appeal dismissed
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.