Appeal No 474 of 1964
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated March 14 1963 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in CRP No 1725 of 1959
210 M C Setalvad and T V R Tatachari for the appellant
Kirpa Narain and T Satyanarayana for respondent Nos 1 and 9
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hidayatullah J
On the application of two creditors the appellant Yenumula Mallu Dora has been adjudged insolvent by the Subordinate Judge Kakinada and a receiving order has been passed against him
The respondents before us are one of the petitioning creditors and the legal representatives of the other petitioning creditor who died during these proceedings
The first petitioning creditor held a decree for money which he had obtained in OS 67 of 1949
He also held another money decree in OS 473 of 1948
The second petitioning creditor held a decree which she had obtained in OS 17 of 1955
The application was based upon three acts of insolvency which the appellant was stated to have committed and on the general facts that he was indebted to the tune of Rs two lakhs and was unable to pay his debts
The three acts of insolvency alleged against him were a evasion of arrest in execution of the money decree in OS 67 of 1949 b sale of some of his properties on September 26 1956 in execution arising from OS 73 of 1952 and c sale of some of his properties on September 19 1956 in execution of money decree in OS 9 of 1950
It was also alleged that he was fraudulently transferring properties in the name of his wife and brother in law and had suffered a collusive charge decree for maintenance in favour of his wife to delay and defeat his creditors
The Subordinate Judge Kakinada did not accept the first two acts of insolvency
The evidence regarding evasion of arrest was not found convincing and the second act of insolvency was rejected because the sale of the property was in execution of a mortgage decree
In respect of the third art of insolvency the Subordinate Judge held that it satisfied section 6e of the and an adjudication and a receiving order were justified in the case
An appeal was taken to the District Court at Rajahmundry CA 41 of 1958 which was dismissed on October 15 1959
A Revision Application filed under section 75 of the was dismissed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh on March 14 1963
The appellant however obtained special leave of this Court and has filed the present appeal against the order of the High Court
The contention of the appellant was and still is that the third act of insolvency was not established as he had deposited within 211 one month of the sale the entire decretal amount together with poundage and commission and the sale was set aside on his petition under Or
21 r 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure
He contended therefore that as none of the acts of insolvency remained the petition ought to have been dismissed as incompetent or he was
entitled to have the petition dismissed in any event under section 25 of the which allows a creditor s petition to be dismissed on sufficient cause
He submitted that as the sale was set aside before the order of adjudication was made the preexisted sufficient cause for the dismissal of the creditors  petition
The Subordinate Judge relying upon Venkatakrishnayya vs Malakondayya1 and on decisions of the Lahore and the Calcutta High Courts rejected the submission and made the order against the appellant
The District Judge Rajahmundry agreed with the conclusion of the Subordinate Judge and the High Court rejected  the petition for revision
In this appeal the same points are urged  again for our acceptance
In our judgment the view of the law taken in this case by the Subordinate Judge and approved by the District Court is right and does not warrant any interference
The object of the law of insolvency is to seize the property of  an insolvent before he can squander it and to distribute it amongst his creditors
It is however not every debtor who has borrowed  beyond his assets or even one whose property is attached in execution of his debts who can be subjected to such control
The jurisdiction of the court commences when certain acts take place which are known as acts of insolvency and which give a right to his creditors to apply to the Court for his adjudication as an insolvent
The lays down in section 6 what acts
are to be regarded as acts of insolvency
It is a long list
Some are voluntary acts of the insolvent and some others are involuntary
The involuntary acts are of a kind by which a creditor is able to compel a debtor to disclose his insolvent condition even if the insolvent is careful enough not to commit a voluntary act of insolvency
One such act is that the insolvent has been imprisoned in execution of a decree of any court for payment of money and another is that any of his property has been sold in execution of a decree of any court for payment of money
In this case the property of the appellant was sold on September 19 1956 in execution of a money decree against him and therefore there is no question that he was guilty of an act of insolvency described in section 6e of the 
1 AIR 1942 Mad 306 212 Under section 7 a creditor is entitled to present a petition in the Insolvency Court against a debtor if he has committed an act of insolvency provided as laid down in section 9i c the petition is made within three months of the act of insolvency on which the petition is grounded
In this case both these conditions are fulfilled
There is thus no doubt that the petitioning creditors  application under section 7 complied with section 6 e and section 9  1  c of the 
The petitioning creditors alleged that the appellant was indebted to the extent of Rs two lakhs and this was not denied by the appellant
In the trial of one of the execution petitions filed against him by a decree holder the appellant admitted that he had no means to pay the decree debt because all his properties were under attachment and were being brought to sale
He also stated that he was not in a position to discharge the debts
It is therefore clear that the appellant who was in more than embarrassed pecuniary circumstances was unable to pay his debts
It was also clear from the evidence which the District Court and the Subordinate Judge have concurrently accepted that he had made some transfers to screen his properties from his creditors and had suffered a decree for maintenance in a suit by his wife
In view of these facts which the appellant cannot now deny he is driven to support his case by argument on law
The argument as we have seen is two fold
We are not inclined to accept either leg of the argument
An act of insolvency once committed cannot be explained or purged by subsequent events
The insolvent cannot claim to wipe it off by paying some of his creditors
This is because the same act of insolvency is available to all his creditors
By satisfying one of the creditors the act of insolvency is not erased unless all creditors are satisfied because till all creditors are paid the debtor must prove his ability to meet his liabilities
In this case the petitioning creditors had their own decrees
It was in the decree of another creditor that the payment was made but only after the act of insolvency was committed
Besides the petitioning creditors there were several other creditors to whom the appellant owed large sum of money and his total debts aggregated to Rs two lakhs
It is plain that any of the remaining creditors including the petitioning creditors could rely upon the act of insolvency even though one or more creditors might have been paid in full
The act of insolvency which the appellant had committed thus remained and was not purged by payment of decretal amount after the sale in execution of the money decree
21 3 The next question is whether the Subordinate Judge should have exercised his discretion under section 25 to dismiss the petition of the creditors treating the deposit of the money as sufficient cause
Section 25 of the is in wide terms but it is impossible to give effect to those wide terms so as to confer a jurisdiction to ignore an act of insolvency at least in cases where the debtor continues to be heavily indebted and there is no proof that he is able to pay As debts
The section reads as follows 25
Dismissal of petition
1 In the case of a petition presented by a creditor where the Court is not satisfied with the proof of his right to present the petition or of the service on the debtor of notice of the order admitting the petition or of the alleged act of insolvency or is satisfied by the debtor that he is able to pay his debts or that for any other sufficient cause no order ought to be made the Court shall dismiss the petition 2       The section expressly mentions three circumstances in which the petition made by a creditor must be dismissed namely i the absence of the right of the creditor to make the application ii failure to serve the debtor with the notice of the admission of the petition and iii the ability of the debtor to pay his debts
In addition the Court has been given a discretion to dismiss the petition if it is satisfied that there is other sufficient cause for not making the order against the debtor
The last clause of the section need not necessarily be read ejusdm generis with the previous ones but even so there can be no sufficient cause if after an act of insolvency is established the debtor is unable to pay his debts
The discretion to dismiss the petition can only be exercised under very different circumstances
What those cases would be it is neither easy nor necessary to specify but examples of sufficient cause are to be found when the petition is malicious and has been made for some collateral or inequitable purpose such as putting pressure upon the debtor or for extorting money from him or where the petitioning creditor having refused tender of money fraudulently and maliciously files the application
An order is sometimes not made when by the receiving order the only asset of the debtor would be destroyed such as a life interest which would cease on his bankruptcy
Cases have also occurred 214 where a receiving order was not made because there were no assets and it would have been a waste of time and money to make a receiving order against the debtor
These examples merely illustrate the grounds on which orders are generally made in the exercise of the discretion conferred by the last clause of section 25
This case is clearly one which cannot be treated under that clause
There are huge debts and no means to pay even though there are properties which if realised may satisfy at least in part the creditors of the appellant
The appellant was clearly guilty of an act of insolvency and an act of insolvency cannot be purged by anything he may have done subsequently
There is no proof of malicious or inequitable dealing on the part of the petitioning creditors
They have proved the necessary facts and have established both the act of insolvency and the inability of the appellant to pay his debts
The appellant has not been able to prove that he is able to pay
In fact he has admitted that he is unable to pay his debts
The High Courts have taken a similar and uniform view of such cases
These rulings are quite numerous but the following may be seen Pratapmall Rameshwar vs Chunnilal Jahuri1 Lal Chand Chaughuri vs Bogha Ram and others2 and Venkatakrishnayya vs Malakondayya3
We do not consider it necessary to examine the facts in those cases because they apply correctly the principles which we have set out above to the facts in the cases then present
It is therefore quite clear that the adjudication of the appellant and the receiving order against him were properly made
In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed
There will be no order as to costs
Appeal dismissed
1 AIR 1933 Cal
2 AIR 1938 Lah
819 3 AIR1942 Mad


Summary:
On the application of two creditors respondents in this appeal the appellant was adjudged a bankrupt by the Subordinate Judge Kakinada and a receiving order was passed against him
This adjudication was based on the one act of insolvency out of three alleged in the application which was accepted by the sub judge ie the sale of some of his properties in execution of a money decree
Appeals against the order to the District Judge and later to the High Court were dismissed
It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the alleged act of insolvency was not established as he had deposited within one month of the sale the entire decretal amount and the sale was set aside on a petition by him under Order 21 rule 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure that in any event he was entitled to have the application dismissed under section 25 of the  which allows a creditor s application to be dismissed on sufficient cause
HELD The adjudication of the appellant as an insolvent and the receiving order against him were properly made
214 E An act of insolvency once committed cannot be explained or purged by subsequent events
The insolvent cannot claim to wipe it off by paying some of his creditors the same act of insolvency is available to all his creditors and is not erased unless all creditors are satisfied
The act of insolvency which the appellant had committed had remained and was not purged by payment of the decretal amount after the sale in execution of the money decree the respondents could therefore rely on it even though one or more creditors might have been paid in full
1212 F H ii Although section 25 of the is in wide terms it cannot be given effect to so as to ignore an act of insolvency in cases such as the present one where the debtor continues to be heavily indebted and there is no proof that he is able to pay his debts
213 A B Venkatakrishnayya vs Malakondayya AIR 1942 Mad 306 Pratapmall Rameshwar vs Chunnilal Jahuri AIR 1933 Cal 417 and Lal Chand Changhuri vs Bogha Ram  Ors AIR 1938 Lah 819 referred to