Provable debts in insolvency annulment include claims beyond section 9(2) notice creditors; suppression of a creditor justified recall.

Under the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909, annulment of an insolvency adjudication requires discharge of all provable debts owed to the full body of creditors, not merely those who could support an insolvency notice under section 9(2). A DRT recovery certificate debt was therefore not excluded from consideration for annulment purposes simply because it was not a decree-debt for section 9(2) notice. The text also states that suppression of a material creditor and a false assertion that no other creditor existed justified recall of the annulment order, because the annulment had been sought on the footing that all debts were settled.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the recall of the annulment order was justified on the ground that the insolvency petitioner had suppressed the existence of another creditor and falsely represented that no other creditor existed; (ii) whether, for the purpose of annulment under the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909, a debt reflected in a DRT recovery certificate could be ignored on the footing that it was not a decree-debt capable of supporting an insolvency notice under section 9(2).

Issue (i): whether the recall of the annulment order was justified on the ground that the insolvency petitioner had suppressed the existence of another creditor and falsely represented that no other creditor existed.

Analysis: The record showed that the appellant was aware of the respondent bank's adjudicated claim yet failed to disclose it when seeking annulment, while asserting on oath that there were no other creditors. The statement made to the Court that only one creditor existed was thus incorrect, and the omission was material because the annulment was granted on the basis that all debts had been settled.

Conclusion: The suppression of a material creditor justified recall of the annulment order, and the challenge on this ground failed against the appellant.

Issue (ii): whether, for the purpose of annulment under the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909, a debt reflected in a DRT recovery certificate could be ignored on the footing that it was not a decree-debt capable of supporting an insolvency notice under section 9(2).

Analysis: The scheme of the Act distinguishes between the class of creditors who may initiate insolvency proceedings by serving notice under section 9(2) and the wider class of creditors whose debts must be satisfied before annulment. Sections 2(a), 2(b), 21 and 46 show that the expressions "creditor" and "debt" are of wide import, and that all provable debts and liabilities must be discharged before adjudication can be annulled. The inability to rely on a recovery certificate for section 9(2) purposes did not exclude the respondent bank from being treated as a creditor for annulment purposes.

Conclusion: The respondent bank's claim had to be taken into account for annulment, and the appellant's construction of the Act was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The order recalling the annulment was sustained, and the appeal was dismissed because an insolvent seeking annulment must satisfy all provable creditors and cannot obtain relief after suppressing an existing creditor's claim.

Ratio Decidendi: For annulment under the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909, the debtor must discharge all provable debts owed to the full body of creditors, and a creditor's claim is not excluded merely because it cannot found an insolvency notice under section 9(2).

---