HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Click here to view full judgement.
A.N.Ray, J. -
(1.) This is an application for an adjudication. The main act of insolvency relied on is that there was an attachment. There are two grounds of opposition: first, that the respondent has ability to pay, secondly, that the attachment is invalid inasmuch as there was a Receiver in respect of the properties and no leave was taken prior to effecting attachment.
(2.) Counsel on behalf of the applicant relied on a Bench decision reported in Pratapmal Ramesh-war v. Chunilal Johuri, AIR 1933 Cal 417 on the observation appearing at p. 418 of the report that the words 'ability to pay debts' in the statute mean not merely that the man has assets which, if liquidation proceeds, may in the result, provide-sufficient money to discharge his debts but that he is not so embarrassed that he cannot meet his debts in the ordinary way by making legal tender and discharging debts. The circumstance that a man has assets and not liquid assets and, therefore he cannot pay his debts is a circumstance which stands in favour of having a liquidation and not against having a liquidation.
(3.) On behalf of the respondent, reliance is placed on the decree in the partition suit which provides that the Receiver is to sell the properties in suit. It is true that there is perhaps not sufficient or adequate cash with the respondent just at the present moment but taking a broad view of the facts in this case I am of opinion that the respondent has ability to pay the debts. The respondent has stated in his affidavit that the Receiver is about to sell the properties which will yield to the respondent large sums of money.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.