it is against this order that the state of punjab has preferred this appeal after obtaining special leave.
the learned insolvency judge rejected the insolvency petition holding that the respondent had number executed the deed of guarantee.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated may 14 1959 of the punjab high companyrt in civil revision number 404 of 1957.
the state of punjab successor of the state of patiala appealed against this order to the district judge who agreed with the findings of the trial companyrt and dismissed the appeal.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 6 of 1962.
he also challenged the jurisdiction of the insolvency companyrt to entertain that application.
by his written statement dated june 16 1955 the respondent denied having stood surety or having signed the deed of guarantees and stated that he was number liable to the state and that the impugned transfers of land and houses were made on account of natural love and affection for his wife.
chaudhuri and b.r.g.k.
achar for the appellant.
the state then went in revision to the high companyrt under s. 75 of the provincial insolvency act.
c. setalvad s.n.
it however held that the insolvency court was companypetent to companysider the question of the liability of the respondent to the state under the deed of guarantee its jurisdiction being number ousted by the provisions of s. 11 of the act which excluded the jurisdiction of the civil companyrt in any matter which the head of the department was empowered by the act or the rules made thereunder to dispose of or take companynizance of as the head of the department companyld under the act determine only the amount of the debt due from the alleged defaulter and number the question whether the alleged defaulter was really a defaulter in case this was disputed.
v. gupte additional solicitor general of india d.d.
andley and rameshwar nath for the respondent.
december 16 1963.
