HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO C.M.S.A.No.148 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed against the Judgment in Appeal Suit No.83 of 2005 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Anantapur arising out of the Insolvency Petition No.35 of 2001 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gooty. 2. The application was filed by the appellant herein to declare respondents Nos.1 and 2 as insolvents on the ground that the 1st respondent has borrowed money from the appellant herein and respondents Nos.1 and 2 have transferred the properties to defeat his rights and therefore, an act of insolvency was committed. The lower Court has allowed the application and aggrieved by that order, the 2nd respondent in the main insolvency petition, who is the 1st respondent herein, filed the appeal and the appeal has been allowed by the learned I Additional District Judge on the legal aspect that the application is barred by time without going into other merits of the contention of the 1st respondent herein as to whether she can be declared as insolvent or not when she was not a debtor of the appellant herein. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the order of the lower Court holding that the application is barred by limitation is not correct. Admittedly, as per the provisions of Section 9 of the Provincial Insolvency Act an application to declare a person as insolvent shall be filed within a period of three months from the date of act of insolvency. The act of insolvency, evidently, in this case is on 08.06.2001. The application was filed on 07.09.2001. The lower appellate Court has considered that the period of limitation is 90 days and consequently, the application having been filed after a period of 90 days is barred by time. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the calculation made by the lower appellate Court in considering the period of limitation is not proper. According to him, there is nothing in the provisions under Section 9 of the Provincial Insolvency Act that the period of limitation is 90 days. As per Section 3 Sub-Section 35 of the General Clauses Act, ‘month’ shall mean a month reckoned according to the British Calendar. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that it is not 90 days that has to be taken into consideration. Evidently, the months of July and August have got 31 days and consequently, the number of days in that month is not the criterion and the month alone is the criterion. In this connection, he relied upon a decision reported in In re V. S.Metha and others[1], wherein it was held by the Division Bench of High Court that the expression ‘month’ in the statute does not necessarily mean 30 days but goes according to the Gregorian Calendar unless the context otherwise requires. Therefore, when the period of three months was mentioned under Section 106 of the Factories Act in that case, the Court held that it does not mean 90 days and it means three calendar months. 5. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the Judgment of the lower appellate Court holding that the petition was beyond the period of limitation is not proper and is liable to be set aside. 6. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the matter is remanded to the lower appellate Court to consider the other objections of the 1st respondent herein as to the liability to be declared as an insolvent when she is not a debtor of the appellant herein. The lower Court shall dispose of the matter within three months. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J Date:08.09.2011 Note: L.R. Copy to be marked. (B/o.) INL [1] AIR 1970 ANDHRA PRADESH 234