B.D.AGARWAL, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 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 under Section 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 and Sons: - - I. Fixed Deposit Account: - -Deposit cf Rs. 10,300/ - dated 7th July. 1954, for the period oi 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. 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.
(3.) 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 limitation. In the alternative it is contended that the claim raised by them is premature. The appellants were possessed of assets worth several lacs. Respondent No. 3 relinquished her interest in favour of the remaining partners and hence she could not be adjudged insolvent.;