Broad bank authority and statutory attachment rules support insolvency proceedings despite earlier attachments.

A broad resolution empowering bank officials to attend to all affairs of the bank and all court proceedings was held sufficient to authorise the filing of an insolvency petition, so the objection to authority failed. An attachment remaining in force for the statutory period under the insolvency provision constituted an act of insolvency, and the fact that earlier qualifying attachments existed did not prevent the later attachment from having that character. The challenge on both grounds therefore failed, and the adjudication of insolvency was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the bank officer who signed the insolvency petition had authority to do so on behalf of the bank; and (ii) whether the existence of earlier attachments prevented the attachment relied on by the petitioning creditor from constituting an act of insolvency.

Issue (i): whether the bank officer who signed the insolvency petition had authority to do so on behalf of the bank.

Analysis: The resolution empowered the director-in-charge and secretary to attend to all the affairs of the bank and all court proceedings relating to it. That language was wide enough to include the institution and conduct of insolvency proceedings in court. The authority was not confined to suits or limited to existing disputes, and therefore covered the filing of the petition.

Conclusion: The officer had full authority to present the insolvency petition, and the objection failed.

Issue (ii): whether the existence of earlier attachments prevented the attachment relied on by the petitioning creditor from constituting an act of insolvency.

Analysis: Section 9(e) treats an attachment remaining in force for not less than twenty-one days in execution of a decree as an act of insolvency. A debtor may commit more than one act of insolvency, and each attachment satisfying the statutory condition is a separate act. The existence of prior attachments did not deprive the petitioning creditor's attachment of its statutory character.

Conclusion: The attachment relied on by the bank amounted to an act of insolvency, notwithstanding the earlier attachments.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on both grounds and the adjudication of insolvency was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A broad authority to attend to all affairs and court proceedings of a bank includes authority to institute insolvency proceedings, and an attachment subsisting for the statutory period constitutes an act of insolvency even if other qualifying attachments have already occurred.

---