- (1.) THIS is a revision under Section 75 (1) of the Provincial Insolvency Act.
(2.) THE applicant filed an insolvency petition in the court of Insolvency Judge for adjudging the respondents as insolvents on the ground that the respondents did not pay a sum of Rs. 48,522/- which became due and also had committed various acts of insolvency including, making fictitious entries in their account. The petition was presented on 28-7-1986 before notice could be issued on the petition, the respondents put in appearance and opposed the application for appointment of interim receiver. The said application was rejected on 12-8-1986 by the Insolvency Judge with the consent of the parties. The respondents also deposited in court fixed deposit receipts of Rs. 50,000/- in order to show that they possessed sufficient assets and money to pay off the debt of the applicant and did not commit any act of insolvency. Thereafter, an application was presented by the respondents, being application No. 45c for dismissing the insolvency petition and requested the court to exercise the powers under S. 25 of the Act. This application has been allowed by the court. An appeal preferred by the applicant was dismissed by the District Judge, Etah, by his judgement dated 27-10-1986.
(3.) AGGRIEVED by the orders of the court below the applicant has filed this revision. It is necessary to state here that the concurrent findings of the two courts below are that the respondents admitted that a sum of Rs. 48 thousand and odd is due from them to applicant. However, the case of the respondents is that certain documents executed by the respondents are with the applicant and they are ready and willing to pay the money if the said documents are returned to them. There is a dispute between the parties as to whether such documents exist. The applicant's case is that no such documents exist. The matter has yet to be examined. The further finding of the courts below is that the applicant's case that the respondents' business was closed for some time before the presentation of the insolvency petition is incorrect. It has been found that from April, 1986 to July 1986, the respondents firm transacted the business of over Rs. 84,39,794. 32 and during the same period, the respondents paid purchase tax to the tune of Rs. 68963. 34 and Mandi Shulk in the amount of Rs. 29,782-77. The courts below have also taken note of the fact that the respondents had huge business assets and in any case the respondents' case in this regard has not been disbelieved by the courts below.;