PUSHKAR NARAYAN BRAHMWAR; IN RE HARISCHANDRA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a notice of motion taken out by one Harischandra Sharma, a proving creditor, in the insolvency of one Pushkar Narayan Brahm-war. The notice of motion is taken out for an order to summon before the Court under Section 36 of the Presidency-towns Insolvency Act, 3 of 1909, the following four persons -- Shri Brijnarayan Brahmwar, Shri Govind Ram Arora, Shri S. S. Kothari and Shri Har Narayan Arora, and to call upon them to produce the documents in their respective custody or power relating to the insolvent, his dealings or property and to call upon Brijnarayan Brahmwar to produce all the relevant books and documents pertaining to the transactions stated to have taken place between the General Business Corporation and the sister concerns with which the General Business Corporation is stated to have had dealings, and the business carried on by the insolvent, including the books of account and other papers at the head office at Ajmer. All the four persons whose names have been sot out have been duly served. Govind Kam Aroni has, however, written to this Court stating that he is unable to remain present in Court on the date fixed for hearing. Therefore, so far as he is concerned; the notice of motion is allowed to stand over.

(2.) Out of the three remaining persons, S. S. Kothari is within the limits of the ordinary original jurisdiction of this Court, whereas the other two persons are outside the limits of the ordinary original jurisdiction of this Court and reside at a distance exceeding 200 miles from this Court. The applicant has stated in his petition that the insolvent was adjudicated on 1-3-1950, and in his deficieney statement' he has stated that he was the proprietor of the General Business Corporation, and that due to difficulties he had to borrow from professional moneylenders, and he had incurred debts to the extent of Rs. 2,19,911-14.3. The insolvent was publicly examined, and certain facts relating to his dealings with Brij-narayan Brahmwar, Govind Ram Arora, S. S. Kothari and Har Narayan Arora were disclosed. Those facts have been set oat in the petition and extracts from the statements made by the insolvent have also been set out in paras. 6, 7 and 8 of the petition. In paras. 13, 14 and 15 of the petition certain other In Re: Pushkar Narayan Brahmwar; vs. (21.12.1951 -BOMHC) Page 3 of 9 yan Brahmwar; vs. (21.12.1951 -BOMHC) Page 3 of 9 statements relating to his dealings with Brijnarayan Brahmwar have been set out. On the facts disclosed, the applicant has prayed that all the four persons, whoso names I have set out earlier, appear to have been concerned with the transactions of the insolvent and should be examined under Section 36, Presidency-Towns Insolvency Act "as they are persons who are capable of giving substantial information respecting the insolvent, his dealings or property and in fact they are persons who may rightly be said to have in their possession property belonging to the insolvent." .

(3.) I have no doubt that this is a case in which an order should be passed under Section 36, clause (1), Presidency-Towns Insolvency Act for their examination and calling them to produce the papers and documents which have been referred to in the notice of motion. But the question arises whether this Court has jurisdiction over the persons, other than S. S. Kothari, (who are admittedly residing outside the jurisdiction of this Court and at a distance exceeding 200 miles) to call upon them to personally remain present before the Court for their examination and for production of the documents and papers set out in the notice of motion.