Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. It is no doubt, the policy of the Insolvency Law to prevent a scramble among creditors, to avoid a multiplicity of actions and to have the insolvent's estate wound up with the best possible expedition and the least amount of expense, in the interests of the creditors as well as the insolvent. The jurisdiction of the Court, to make an order under Section 53 or 54 of the Act, on a proper consideration of the facts, no matter who moved the Court, is not restricted by any of the provisions of the Provincial Insolvency Act. Any order made under Section 53 or 54 enures for the benefit of all creditiors and not merely for the benefit of any particular creditor. There is no rule that the Official Receiver alone and nobody else can move in the matter. The sections lay down in what circumstances transfers and preferences shall be deemed void against the Official Receiver. It was held by the Patna High Court in Hamraj Champa Lall v. Ramkishen Bam 38 Ind. Cas. 369 : 2 P.L.J. 101 : 1 P.L.W. 752 : (1917) Pat. 303 that "what was contemplated by the procedure provided for by this statue was, that the Receiver wa3 the person to impeach any fraudulent transfer or conveyance by the insolvent of his property. If the Receiver refuses to do so, then it would be open to any creditor to apply to the Judge for leave to institute a proceeding under Section 36 on his own behalf and on behalf of the other creditors. But until the Receiver refuses or declines act no one case cam do so, because he is the person to set the proceeding under Section 36 in motion." In ex parte Kearssley: In re Genese (1886) 17 Q.B.D. 1 : 55 L.J.Q.B. 325 : 34 W.R. 474 : 3 Morrell 57 Cave, J., laid down the course to be pursued by a creditor if the trustees refused to act. " Now the proper course for creditors, if the trustee refuses to act, or to allow his name to be used, is for them to come to the Court and apply for leave to use the name of the trustee on giving an indemnity against costs. On such an application the Court will consider the nature of the proposed proceedings, and, if satisfied that there are prima facie grounds for allowing the creditors to proceed, will grant the application" (See also Williams on Bankruptcy, 10th Edition, p. 373). The practice in English Bankruptcy Courts appears to all intents and purposes the same in India. The petition of the appellant in this case is, in substance, such an application. The petitioners alleged that the Official Receiver not only failed to move the Court to set aside the alienation in question, but also that he acted against the interests of the creditors. In the absence of any rules framed under the Act in regard to this matter, when an Official Receiver declines to assert his rights, a creditor can apply to the Court to allow him to use the Official Receiver's name in order to recover the insolvent's property, or to set aside a voluntary transfer or to avoid a fraudulent preference, for the benefit of the creditors. In this case, the requirements of law have been satisfied by making the Official Receiver a party to the application and the respondent's contention fails.