IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.397 of 2008 Rajeshwar Nath Tiwary, son of Keshav Tiwary, resident of Village-Bhadawar, Police Station- Brahmpur, District- Buxar --- Pertitioner/Petitioner. Versus 1. The State Bank of India, at Branch Arrah, Police Station- Nawada Arrah, District- Bhojpur through Chief Manager of the Branch Office, Nawada, Arrah, Police Station-Nawada, Arrah, District-Bhojpur. 2. The State Bank of India, Branch Brahmpur, Chaurasta, Police Station-Brahmpur, District-Buxar through Manager, Branch Bank of Brahmpur Chaurasta, Police Station-Brahmpur, District-Buxar --- - -------- Opposite Parties/Opposite Parties. ----------- 4. 3.8.2010 Heard Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey for the petitioner. This application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order dated 20.3.2007, passed by the learned District Judge, Buxar, in Insolvency Case No. 1 of 1995 (Rajeshwar Nath Tiwary Vrs. State Bank of India), which has been rejected on the ground that such an application under Section 13 of the Provincial Insolvency Act (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) is not maintainable against the Corporation. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. It appears that the present petitioner had 2 taken loan from respondent State Bank of India. He did not repay the debts leading to a certificate case bearing Certificate Case No.51 of 1991-92, before the learned Certificate Officer, Buxar. In view of his refusal to satisfy the certificate due, he was sent to civil prison. This was followed by the aforesaid application under the Act, inter alia, for declaration that he is insolvent within the meaning of the Act. The same has been rejected by the learned District & Sessions Judge by the impugned order. He has relied on Section 8 of the Act which is reproduced hereinbelow: “8. Exemption of corporation etc. from insolvency proceedings.- No insolvency petition shall be presented against any corporation or against any association or company registered under any enactment for the time being in force.” It is evident that the State Bank of India has been constituted under the provisions of the State Bank of India Act, 1955. Such an application under section 13 of the Act is not maintainable against the State Bank of India which is obviously covered by Section 8 of the Act. We are, therefore, agree with the 3 order passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge. This application is accordingly rejected. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar,J. )