GAPPULAL GORDHANDAS Vs. CHUNILAL SHYAM LAL
LAWS(RAJ)-1961-2-13
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on February 16,1961

GAPPULAL GORDHANDAS Appellant
VERSUS
CHUNILAL SHYAM LAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Jagat Narayan, J. - (1.) These are connected revision applications arising out of a suit for fixation of standard rent filed by the respondent under Section 6 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act 1950.
(2.) The plaintiff is an unregistered firm. The suit was resisted by the landlords inter alia on the ground that in view of the provisions of Section 69 of the Partnership Act the present suit is not maintainable. The trial court upheld this objection and dismissed the suit. On appeal the learned District Judge relying on Sreemannarayanamurthy v. Arjanadu, AIR 1939 Mad 145 held that Section 69 of the Partnership Act was not applicable as the suit was not to enforce a right arising out of any contract but was a suit for enforcing a right conferred by the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act. 1950. In the Madras case a petition for adjudication of a debtor as an insolvent was moved by a creditor. It was resisted on the ground that the creditor being an unregistered firm the petition was not maintainable. The learned District Judge dismissed the insolvency petition on this ground but the High Court set aside the decision on the following reasoning: "The learned District Judge has held that this insolvency petition is in reality a proceeding to enforce a right arising from a contract. We are unable to agree with the learned District Judge on this point. A petition for the adjudication of a debtor as an insolvent is not in cur view a proceeding to enforce a right arising from a contract. It is no doubt the case that the creditors who apply for the adjudication of their debtors as insolvents hope to recover the whole or some portion of their debt in the distribution of the assets of the insolvent's estate, but it cannot be said, we think, that the proceedings in insolvency are proceedings to enforce the rights of the creditors arising from the contracts between them and their debtors. The right which the creditor who files the insolvency petition against his debtor is seeking to exercise is the right of a creditor who finds his debtor in insolvent circumstances to have the assets of the debtor administered in insolvency and distributed for the benefit of the creditors as a body. This is a right which is conferred upon the creditors by statute and is not a right arising out of a particular contract of loan between a petitioning creditor and a debtor".
(3.) With all respect I am unable to agree with the above reasoning. Apart from the terms of a particular contract the parties who enter into it are also governed by other laws which create various rights and liabilities. The Insolvency Act gives a right to a creditor to move a petition for the adjudication of a debtor as an insolvent. It is not open to a stranger to move an application for the adjudication of a person as insolvent on the ground that he has committed acts of insolvency. Although this right is conferred by statute only a person who is a creditor can enforce it. In this view of the matter it is a right arising out of a contract.;


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