AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE complainant is a creditor of the opposite party which is firm that was engaged inter alia in the business of lending money and raising loans, both on interests. THE complainant''s grievance is that he had deposited Rs. 1 lakh with the opposite party and that despite several demands, oral and written, it has not been repaid. He claims repayment of the amount with interest
IN its version of the opposite party has pointed out inter alia that a petition I.P. of 11 of 1990 has been filed in the local Sub Court by a creditor to adjudicate the firm and its office bearers - partners - as insolvents and that it is still pending. At the hearing the representative of the opposite party also brought to our notice that the complainant himself has filed a suit of O.P. 761 of 1990 in the local Sub Court for recovery of the amount which is the subject of this complaint. This was admitted by Counsel for the complainant Apart from the other objection raised by the opposite party, the pending of O.P. 761 of 1990 render the dispute subjudice and it would not be proper for this Commission to adjudicate on the same claim in this proceeding. The pendency of the Insolvency petition is another factor which cannot be overlooked. If the insolvency petition is allowed the complainant cannot escape its net and he is admittedly an unsecured creditor with a debt which is provable in insolvency. For these reasons we think that we should decline to entertain the complaint.
In view of this conclusion it is necessary to consider whether a complaint of this nature will at all lie to compel repayment of a debt.
THE complainant will be at liberty to prosecute his suit and if insolvency intervenes, to attempt to prove his debt in the insolvency proceedings. With these observations we reject the complaint. Complaint rejected.