Ram and Co. Vs. Kasi Naicker & Ors  Insc 329 (30 July 2003)
V. Patil & [D.M. Dharmadhikari. Shivaraj V. Patil,J.
protection provided in the proviso to Section 55 of the Provincial Insolvency
Act, 1920 is available to a bonafide transferee for valuable consideration
after the presentation of any insolvency petition but before the date of
passing of the order for adjudication without notice of the presentation of the
insolvency petition by or against the debtor", is the short question that
arises for consideration and decision in this appeal.
appellant filed petition under Section 55 of the Provincial Insolvency Act,
1920 (for short 'the Act') for recovery of Rs.25,155.40 with interest from the
Bank (respondent No. 2) on the ground that it had paid the said amount on
24.8.1978 for purchase of shares belonging to the insolvent Kasi Naicker
(respondent No. 1). Said Kasi Naiker had filed a petition to declare him as
insolvent in I.P. No. 7/76 in 1976, which was dismissed on 25.10.1977 by the Subordinate Court, Tuticorin. He filed appeal in
C.M.A. No. 116/77 before the District Court challenging the order of dismissal,
which was allowed on 17.10.1978. The appellant purchased 249 shares of Rajapalayam
Mills belonging to the debtor Kasi Naicker by depositing the amount to get the
shares released in its favour with the consent of the debtor. When the bank
neither released the share certificates nor returned the money deposited by it,
the appellant filed IA No. 6/79 in I.P. No. 7/76 under Section 55 of the Act
for declaration that 249 shares of Rajapalayam Mills belong to it or in the
alternative to return the money with interest paid by it. The said petition was
allowed by order dated 19.10.1984 directing the bank to pay sum of Rs.25,155.40
with interest at 9% per annum from 24.8.1978 to the appellant. Kasi Naicker
filed C.M.A. No. 40/84 aggrieved by the said order made in IA6/79 in I.P. 7/76
in the court of District Judge Tirunelveli. The appeal was allowed holding that
the order of adjudication dates back to the date of filing of the petition and,
therefore, any transaction by the insolvent thereafter would not bind the
receiver and the appellant was not entitled to any relief. The appellant
approached the High Court by filing revision petition in C.R.P. 6/92 in the
High Court challenging the order passed by the learned District Judge. The High
Court dismissed the revision petition. Hence the appellant has filed this
trial court contentions were raised opposing IA No. 6/79. It was contended that
the petition itself was not maintainable; that the amount was not paid by the
appellant and the benefit of Section 55 of the Act was not available to it.
the contentions relief was granted to the appellant. The learned District Judge
in the appeal set forth following three points for determination: -
Whether the amount Rs.25,155.40 remitted by insolvent on 24.8.78 with the bank
of Thanjavur belongs to Srinivas Naicker, proprietor of Krishna Stores or
belongs to the Petitioner Shankar Ram and Co.
Whether the Insolvency
Court has got
jurisdiction to decide this claim.
Whether the petitioner Shankar Ram & Co. is not entitled to file this
petition under Section 55 of the Provincial Insolvency Act."
learned District Judge recorded finding on points (1) and (2) in favour of the
appellant but held against the appellant on point No. (3). It may be mentioned
here that against the order passed by the learned District Judge no revision
was filed by Kasi Naicker or others. It was only the appellant, which filed the
revision before the High Court calling in question the validity of the order
passed by the District Judge in holding that the protection given in Section 55
of the Act was not available to it. As is evident from the order passed by the
High Court in revision only point No. (3) was considered and decided.
the findings on point Nos. (1) and (2) have attained finality. This being the
position it is unnecessary for us to consider the other aspects but to answer
the question set out in the beginning.
concluded that the amount was paid by the appellant to the bank and not by Kasi
Naicker for purchase of shares. It is a matter of record that the appellant
purchased the shares belonging to Kasi Naicker from the bank on payment of
money before passing the order of adjudication, declaring Kasi Naicker
insolvent on 17.10.1978 in C.M.A. No. 116/77.
also found that the appellant had no notice of the presentation of insolvency
petition by the debtor Kasi Naicker on the date when it purchased the shares.
already noticed above the trial court had allowed the claim of the appellant
but the District Court in appeal took a view that although the order of
adjudication was passed on 17.10.1978 it related back to the date of filing the
insolvency petition in IP 7/76 in 1976 in view of Section 28(7) of the Act and
as such the purchase of shares made by the appellant is not protected under
Section 55 of the Act. The answer to the question depends upon the proper
construction and interpretation of provisions of Sections 28 and 55 of the Act.
Sections 28 and 55 read: - "28. Effect of an order of adjudication –
the making of an order of adjudication the insolvent shall aid to the utmost of
his power in the realization of his property and the distribution of the
proceeds among his creditors.
the making of an order of adjudication, the whole of the property of the
insolvent shall vest in the Court or in a receiver as hereinafter provided, and
shall become divisible among the creditors, and thereafter, except as provided
by this Act, no creditor to whom the insolvent is indebted in respect of any
debt provable under this Act shall during the pendency of the insolvency
proceedings have any remedy against the property of the insolvent in respect of
the debt, or commence any suit or other legal proceeding, except with the leave
of the Court and on such terms as the Court may impose.
For the purposes of sub-section (2), all goods being at the date of the
presentation of the petition on which the order is made, in the possession,
order or disposition of the insolvent in his trade or business, by the consent
and permission of the true owner, under such circumstances that he is the
reputed owner thereof, shall be deemed to be the property of the insolvent.
All property which is acquired by or devolves on the insolvent after the date
of an order of adjudication and before his discharge shall forthwith vest in
the Court or receiver, and the provisions of sub-section (2) shall apply in
The property of the insolvent for the purposes of this section shall not
include any property (not being books of account) which is exempted by the Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908, or by any other enactment for the time being in force
from liability to attachment and sale in execution of a decree.
Nothing in this section shall affect the power of any secured creditor to
realize or otherwise deal with his security, in the same manner as he would
have been entitled to realize or deal with it if this section had not been
order of adjudication shall relate back to, and take effect from the date of
the presentation of the petition on which it is made."
Protection to bona fide transactions. – Subject to the foregoing provisions of
this Act with respect to the effect of insolvency on an execution, and with
regard to the avoidance of certain transfers and preferences, nothing in this
Act shall invalidate in the case of an insolvency-
payment by the insolvent to any of his creditors;
payment or delivery to the insolvent;
transfer by the insolvent for valuable consideration; or
contract or dealing by or with the insolvent for valuable consideration:
that any such transaction takes place before the date of the order of
adjudication, and that the person with whom such transaction takes place has
not at the time notice of the presentation of any insolvency petition by or
against the debtor." The object of Section 28 of the Act is to secure
unrestricted right to dispose of insolvent's property after an order of
adjudication is made. This Section clearly states that during the pendency of
the insolvency proceedings, the creditor shall not commence any proceeding
against the property of the insolvent in respect of his debt without the leave
of the Insolvency Court. On making an order of
adjudication, the whole of the property of the insolvent shall vest in the
court or in a receiver, as the case may be, in terms of sub-section (2). An
obligation is placed upon the insolvent to assist the official receiver to
realize the assets. When sub-section (1) is read alongwith sub-section (7), the
effect would be an order of adjudication relates back to the date of
presentation of insolvency petition and the order of adjudication takes effect
from the date of the presentation of the insolvency petition. Consequently,
vesting of property under sub-section (2) also relates back to the date of
presentation of the insolvency petition. Combined reading of sub-sections (1),
(2) and (7) makes the position clear that the interest of the creditors is
safeguarded, parties are put on notice against attempt to transfer the property
after the date of presentation of the insolvency petition by the petitioners or
others relating to his property and also to warn the intending purchasers or
transferees that they are taking the risk of purchasing or getting the property
transferred in their names during the pendency of the insolvency proceedings
from the date of presentation of the petition itself and even before passing of
an order of adjudication. In the absence of such provisions, by design, the
claims and interests of the creditors could be defeated by effecting transfer
of properties after filing the insolvency petition and before passing an order
of adjudication. Sections 28 and 55 of the Act are to be read together. Where
the transfer has been made by the insolvent after presentation of the
insolvency petition, the transfer cannot be held as void ab initio but its
validity or otherwise depends upon a consideration of the question whether the
conditions specified in Section 55 are or are not satisfied. If the view of the
High court affirming the view of the district court that the protection of
Section 55 was not available to the appellant even on satisfying the
requirements of Section 55, the said provision, although is on the statute
book, does not serve any purpose or it is redundant or superfluous.
a cardinal rule of construction that normally no word or provision should be
considered redundant or superfluous in interpreting the provisions of a
statute. In the field of interpretation of statutes, the courts always presume
that the legislature inserted every part thereof with a purpose and the
legislative intention is that every part of the statute should have effect. It
may not be correct to say that a word or words used in a statute are either
unnecessary or without any purpose to serve, unless there are compelling reasons
to say so looking to the scheme of the statute and having regard to the object
and purpose sought to be achieved by it. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Jaipur
Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Bank Ltd. Vikas vs. Shri Ram Gopal Sharma and Ors. [JT
2002 (1) SC 182] while interpreting and considering the effect of proviso to
Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in para 13 observed –
"The proviso to Section 33(2)(b) as can be seen from its very unambiguous
and clear language, is mandatory...........
a contrary view that an order of discharge or dismissal passed by an employer
in contravention of the mandatory conditions contained in the proviso does not
render such an order inoperative or void, defeats the very purpose of the
proviso and it becomes meaningless.
well-settled rule of interpretation that no part of statute shall be construed
as unnecessary or superfluous. The proviso cannot be diluted or disobeyed by an
employer......... The interpretation of statute must be such that it should
advance the legislative intent and serve the purpose for which it is made
rather than to frustrate it." Once the requirements of Section 55 of the
Act are satisfied, the appellant is entitled for the protection of the said
Section as a bona fide transferee. Taking a contrary view takes away the very
protective umbrella specifically made available to a bona fide transferee
covered by Section 55. Protection provided for bona fide transfer in Section 55
is in a way exception to Section 28(7).
to Section 55 of the Act protects bona fide transactions mentioned in clauses
(a) to (d) of Section 55. As per the proviso, in order to get protection to
transactions mentioned in the said Section, two conditions are to be satisfied
any such transaction takes place before the date of the order of adjudication,
the person with whom such transaction takes place has not at the time notice of
the presentation of any insolvency petition.
implication flowing from the said proviso, any transaction that takes place
after the date of the order of adjudication does not get protection of proviso
to Section 55 whether or not the person with whom such transaction takes place
has any notice of the insolvency petition by or against the debtor.
case on hand on the facts found, it is clear that the shares were transferred
in favour of the appellant before the date of the order of adjudication was
made on the insolvency petition filed by Kasi Naickar and the appellant had no
knowledge at the time of purchasing the shares as to the presentation of the
insolvency petition, the transfer of shares was for valuable consideration and
such transfer was bona fide.
this view, the appellants did satisfy the requirements of proviso to Section 55
of the Act and hence they are entitled for the claim made by them. We may add
that Sections 28 and 55 must be read together harmoniously. As already noticed
above, these Sections are designed and intended to serve different purposes.
proviso to Section 55 itself, there is reference to order of adjudication and
the presentation of any insolvency petition. Order of adjudication and
presentation of insolvency petition are two different events essentially
referring to two different dates when in the same proviso, legislature
consciously made a clear statement as to two different dates, they should be
given effect to. If the intention of the proviso to Section 55 of the Act was
not to protect even a bona fide transferee for valuable consideration without
notice of presentation of insolvency petition before an order of adjudication
was made, the legislature could have simply said any transaction taking place
after the date of presentation of any insolvency petition by or against the
debtor instead of qualifying the transaction that takes place before the date
of the order of adjudication. In this situation, the said proviso which is
intended to serve a definite purpose should be given full meaning and effect.
It is not possible to ignore a part of the provision, namely, "any such
transaction takes place before the date of the order of adjudication". It
stands to the reason as well, that a bona fide transferee for valuable
consideration without the knowledge of the presentation of insolvency petition
on the date of transfer of property is to be protected.
view of the facts found, discussion made and reasons recorded above, we are
unable to sustain the impugned judgment of the High Court affirming the order
of the district court. We answer the question set out above in the affirmative
and in favour of the appellant. Hence, the appeal is allowed. The impugned
judgment of the High Court affirming the order of the District Judge is set
aside and that of the trial court is restored. Parties to bear their own costs.