GULAM MUSTAFFA MULLICK Vs. MADANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from an adjudication order made by the learned Judge in insolvency jurisdiction under the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act. It appears that the petitioning creditor on 28 August 1929 obtained a charging order under Order 21, Rule 49, Civil P.C. against the interest of the debtor in a certain partnership. In his petition for adjudication, the petitioning creditor alleged two acts of insolvency. One was that, by reason of this charging order, the interests of the debtor in the copartnership business were attached and that the attachment was still subsisting. The learned Judge has by his order found this act of insolvency proved. The other act of insolvency alleged was a notice of suspension of payment of debts as to which the learned Judge has not found one way or the other.

(2.) Upon this appeal, the debtor contends first, that the petition was not in order seeing that the petitioner had certain security which he had neither given up nor valued; and, he contends further that the charging order under Order 21, Rule 49, is not an attachment within the meaning of the section defining acts of bankruptcy in the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act of 1909.

(3.) So far as the first objection is concerned, as the petitioning creditor by his learned Counsel has in this Court agreed . to give up his security for the benefit of the creditors in the event of his getting an adjudication order, no formidable difficulty arises. That matter is capable of being put right and nothing more need be said about it.