BAJIRAO BHAWANRAO Vs. BANSILAL GANESHLAL
LAWS(BOM)-1962-4-1
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (FROM: NAGPUR)
Decided on April 10,1962

BAJIRAO BHAWANRAO Appellant
VERSUS
BANSILAL GANESHLAL Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

PRATAP SINGH V. DAMODARAN [REFERRED TO]
IN RE: VENKATARAMANAYYA [REFERRED TO]
GOPIKABAI V. CHAPSI PURSHOTTAM [REFERRED TO]
MAHOMED SIDDIQUE YOUSUF VS. OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE OF CALCUTTA [REFERRED TO]
D. G. SAHASRABUDHE, RECEIVER OF THE ESTATE OF BIRDICHAND KISANLAL, VS. KILACHAND DEOCHAND AND COMPANY [REFERRED TO]
RAJE KHANDERAO GOVIND RAO VS. UDHAO GANESH [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

PUCHALAPALLI CHANDRASEKHARA REDDY VS. OFFICIAL RECEIVER NELLORE [LAWS(APH)-1972-9-28] [REFERRED TO]
SHAIK MABI VS. NOMULA SARADA [LAWS(APH)-2007-9-3] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The order in Civil Revision Application No. 288 of 1961 will also dispose of Civil Revision Application No. 241 of 1961. In both these cases the applicant is the same person, namely, one Bajirao son of Bhawanrao, the petitioning creditor. Opponent No. 1 Bansilal in Civil Revision Application No. 288 of 1961 is a transferee in respect of purchase of land on 5-9-1955 and Opponent No. 1 Damodar in Civil Revision Application No. 241 of 1961 is a transferee in respect of a house purchased on 5-9-1955.
(2.)Opponent No. 2 Rajaram Punjaji is an agriculturist of Bori. It seems he had executed three promissory notes as follows:- Promissory note dated 15-9-54 for Rs. 2150/-; Promissory note dated 17-10-54 for Rs. 900/-; and Promissory note dated 3-6-55 for Rs. 180/-. All these promissory notes were in favour of the applicant Bajirao. Bajirao filed an application under Section 9 (1) of the Provincial Insolvency Act against Opponent No. 2 Rajaram for adjudging him as an insolvent. The acts of insolvency which were made as basis for the application were the two transfers dated 5-9-55, one in respect of survey Nos. 38/1 and 72/2 for Rs. 2000/- in favour of Bansilal, and another, sale of a house for Rs. 200/- in favour of Damodar. The application was presented on 7th April, 1956. The debtor Rajaram resisted this application. One of the grounds on which the application was resisted by Rajaram was that the three promissory notes were without consideration and that the applicant Bajirao was not entitled to make the application as he was not the creditor. Rajaram also contended that the sales effected by him did not constitute acts of insolvency. The learned Judge of the Insolvency Court by his order dated 24-7-57 granted the application of the creditor Bajirao and adjudged Rajaram as an insolvent. In paragraph 7 of that order the Insolvency Court held that the debtor had failed to prove that the promissory notes were without consideration. It appears that this order was not challenged and the adjudication of Rajaram as an insolvent became final, Thereafter Bajirao filed an application for annulment of the two transfers dated 5-9-55 under Section 53 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. Actually two separate applications were filed, one against Bansilal and the other against Damodar. Identical defences were raised by the two transferees Bansilal and Damodar in resisting these applications under Section 53 of the Provincial Insolvency Act.
(3.)One of the contentions raised was that the creditor Bajirao had not proved his debt and therefore he was not entitled to make an application under Section 53. At the end of paragraph 11 of the written statement filed by Bansilal it was alleged as follows: -
"This non-applicant submits that the applicant had fraudulently taken advantage of the bogus promissory notes obtained by him from non-applicant No. 2 and thereby seems to have got him adjudged insolvent. The non-applicant No. 2 was not at all indebted to the applicant so as to enable the applicant to have him declared insolvent."



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.