Decided on February 22,1935

K L BAWACHEKAR Respondents


- (1.) THESE are three second appeals, all made against orders of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Sholapur in the insolvency of Hirachand Gangaram of Pandharpur, and under Section 4 of the Provincial Insolvency Act. This insolvent filed his petition on June 7, 1926, and was adjudicated on June 25, 1927. A pleader Mr. Bawachekar was appointed Receiver in the matter. In that character Mr. Bawachekar tried to obtain possession of a warehouse and its contents, which had belonged to the insolvent, and also of the insolvent's house. Objection to the Receiver's action was taken by Mangle-appellant in Appeal No.686 of 1932. The objection was based on an allegation that the insolvent had sold him the warehouse on May 26, 1923.
(2.) ANOTHER objector was Premchand, the insolvent's son. He claimed to have been given in adoption to another family, and that the greater part of the contents of the warehouses-including a quantity of ungianed cotton-was his, in the other family. He is not an appellant,: but the questions he raised are the subject-matter of Appeal No.631 of 1932 by Anna Bapu Gadam. The third objector was R. B. Pandarkar, who set up a sale to him on July 27, 1923, by purchaser, Paraswar, from the insolvent on May 26, 1923. Pandarkar is appellant in second appeal No.540 of 1932. These claims were all enquired into by the learned Subordinate Judge, and have been rejected, and his orders have been confirmed in appeal by the learned District Judge. The findings on the fatts of these two Courts are final. They are, put broadly, that the sale-deeds in favour of Mangle and Paraswar were fictions, never intended to be realized, and entered into for no consideration, and with intent to defeat and delay the transferor's creditors in the embarrassed circumstances which ended in the insolvency.
(3.) AS to the cotton, the finding is that it belonged to the insolvent, who was trading in it under the cloak of his son's and other's names. The points of law argued before us have been several, but one of them is common to two of the appeals and it will be convenient to take this on first, and then to deal with the ones on the separate facts of each of the appeals.;

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