Judgement Appeal from a judgment of the Chief Court (May 5, 1908) affirming a judgment of the Insolvent Estates Court, Amritsar (June 17, 1907). Chaudhri Ganesh Das and others, the insolvent debtors to whose estate the appeal relates, were traders who carried on business together at Amritsar, Benares, and Bombay till November, 1906. On December 3, 1906, on the application of certain of their creditors, made under the Punjab Laws Act (Act IV. of 1872), an order was made by the Insolvent Estates Court, Amritsar, directing that notices be issued calling upon them to shew cause on December 12 why they should not be declared insolvent. On December 12 four of the said debtors appeared and were, with their own consent and in the absence of the other respondents to the said notices, declared insolvent, and the registrar of the Small Cause Court, Amritsar, the first respondent, was thereby appointed receiver. On May 31, 1907, certain other creditors petitioned the Court for the Eelief of Insolvent Debtors at Bombay, praying that all of the said debtors should be adjudicated insolvent under the Indian Insolvent Debtors Act (11 & 12 Viet. c. 21). An order of adjudication was made as prayed pursuant to that Act, and on the same day a further order was made under s. 11, whereby all their real and personal estate and effects were vested in the Official Assignee of Bombay. That vesting order was by the Act effectual throughout India and elsewhere. Intimation of these orders was sent to the judge of the Small Cause Court, Amritsar. On June 10, 1907, the receiver of the said estate for the time being proceeded to take steps for the realization of certain property of the insolvent debtors, or some of them. The appellant on June 13, 1907, obtained an order from the said Bombay Court that the receiver should hold and retain the property in question and shew cause why it should not be delivered over to the appellant for the benefit of the general body of creditors of the debtors. The subsequent proceedings in Bombay are reported in I. L. E. 32 Bomb. 198. The subsequent proceedings in Bombay are reported in I. L. E. 32 Bomb. 198. On June 15, 1907, the appellant preferred two petitions to the Insolvent Estates Court, Amritsar, praying in the one that the contemplated realization should not take place, and in the other that all the property of the debtors should be handed over to him. These petitions were dismissed on June 17 by the judge of the Court, who expressed the opinion that all the property of the debtors in the Punjab had vested, under s. 854 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1882, in the receiver when be was appointed on December 12, 1906, and accordingly that there were no rights subsisting in the debtors as regards such property which could be dealt with under 11 & 12 Viet. c. 21. The appellant thereupon petitioned the Chief Court of the Punjab that the order of dismissal be set aside, and that the receiver be ordered to deliver over all the property of the debtors to him or to shew cause in the Court for the Belief of Insolvent Debtors at Bombay why such order should not be made. The Chief Court dismissed the appellants petition, holding that the order of the Insolvent Estates Court was right, although the judges overruled the reasons upon which it was based, holding that the property had not vested in the receiver under the Civil Procedure Code, 1882. They held that the order of December 12, 1906, " though irregular and incomplete, did in fact make the debtors insolvents from the date it was passed, and that the consequences of being insolvent attached to that order, one of which "(on the construction which they placed on the Punjab Laws Act, 1872, ss. 24 and 27) " was that the property vested in the Court." The material portion of the judgment of the Chief Court to the effect that the property vested in the Amritsar Court is as follows " It is true that Act IV. of 1872 does not in so many words say that the property of the insolvent vests in the Court, but on careful consideration we think that that is what is provided by the Act. Sect. 24 lays down what constitutes an insolvent, and then s. 27 lays down The property of the insolvent shall be sold or administered under the direction of the.. Sect. 24 lays down what constitutes an insolvent, and then s. 27 lays down The property of the insolvent shall be sold or administered under the direction of the.. Court, either through the agency of its own officers or of assignees to be appointed by the Court, in the manner most conducive to the interests of the creditors, and the proceeds shall be divided rate-ably amongst them. We think that the substantial meaning of this section is that the property was to be treated as if it had vested in the Court for the benefit of the creditors, and provided for its being sold, or otherwise administered, by the Court. Objection has been taken to the order of December 12, 1906, making the declaration of insolvency, and undoubtedly the order is defective in that it did not pass an order exempting the person and property ot the debtor from further legal process, section 24 (5.), which order attaches to itself the consequence of being deemed an insolvent. The order, however, was passed with the consent of the debtors, and complied with the provisions of section 24 as regards furnishing of security, and requiring the debtors to make a statement of their assets and liabilities, and it wound up by appointing the registrar of the local Small Cause Court receiver." The Chief Court added that the insolvents place of business was Amritsar, that the bulk of the creditors lived there or elsewhere in the Punjab, that-the debtors were declared insolvent by consent in the Amritsar Court, and that an attempt was made to have the insolvency conducted in Bombay. The Court referred to Re Aranvayal Sabhapathy Moodliar. (( 1897) I. L. R. 31 Bomb. 297,) Danckwerts, K.C., and Kenworthy Brown, for the appellant, contended that both the Courts below were in error, the first in holding that the insolvent estate had vested in a receiver prior to the vesting order of June 13, 1907, under which the appellant claimed, the Chief Court in holding that it had vested in the Court. They referred to the Punjab Laws Act (IV of 1872), ss. 22— 27, and to the rules made under s. 31; also to 11 & 12 Viet. c. 21, ss. They referred to the Punjab Laws Act (IV of 1872), ss. 22— 27, and to the rules made under s. 31; also to 11 & 12 Viet. c. 21, ss. 2, 7, 8, 9, 13, 21, and 26, and submitted that under the true construction of the Punjab Act the order of the Amritsar Court dated December 12, 1906, did not operate to divest the property of the debtors, and further did not operate to vest it in either the receiver thereby appointed or in the Court. On the other hand the vesting order made by the Bombay High Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under the Imperial Act in favour of the appellant effectually vested in him the title to the whole insolvent estate. The jurisdiction and orders of the High Court overrode those of the Amritsar Court. There was no clause in the Punjab Act which enabled the Amritsar Court to control or impede in any way the proceedings of the High Court. The appellants application should have been granted and the insolvent estate in the Punjab should have been made over to him to be administered. Reference was also made to the Provincial Insolvency Act III. of 1907, ss. 16 and 23 and s. 1, sub-s. 3, and to Moti Lal v. Karrabuldin (( 1897) L. R. 24 Ind. Ap. 170.) as to the effect of an attachment. The respondents did not appear. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by SIR ARTHUR WILSON. This is an appeal against a judgment of the Chief Court of the Punjab, which affirmed that of the Insolvent Estates Court, Amritsar. The controversy involved in the appeal relates to an alleged conflict of jurisdiction between two Courts, both having insolvency jurisdiction, but jurisdiction created by different legislative authority and different in its local extent. Under the Imperial Act of Parliament, 11 & 12 Viet. c. 21, relating to insolvency proceedings before what are now the High Courts in the Presidency towns in India, jurisdiction is conferred upon those Courts extending, for the present purpose, over the whole of India, and for many purposes over much wider limits. Under the Punjab Laws Act, IV. Under the Imperial Act of Parliament, 11 & 12 Viet. c. 21, relating to insolvency proceedings before what are now the High Courts in the Presidency towns in India, jurisdiction is conferred upon those Courts extending, for the present purpose, over the whole of India, and for many purposes over much wider limits. Under the Punjab Laws Act, IV. of 1872, in a series of sections beginning with s. 22, the Legislature of the Governor-General in Council has created a system of insolvency of its own, but, of course, such an Act can be effective only within the ambit prescribed by the Act. These are the two systems of insolvent administration which have to be considered in disposing of the present appeal, and have, if possible, to be reconciled. There is, indeed, a third system in India, embodied in chapter 20 of the Civil Procedure Code. This last-mentioned system need not be further alluded to ; for their Lordships are of opinion that the learned judges of the Chief Court were right in considering that it had no application to the circumstances of the present case. The facts of the present case are simple. The debtors were a firm of traders who carried on business at Amritsar and other places in the Punjab, and also at Bombay and elsewhere. On December 3, 1906, the Amritsar Insolvency Court, on the application of a creditor, ordered a notice to issue calling upon the debtors to shew cause why they should not be declared insolvent, and attaching their property in the Punjab. On December 12, in the presence of four out of the five members of the debtor firm, another order was made declaring them insolvent, and requiring them to furnish security, and to put in lists of property, creditors, and debtors. On May 31, 1907, certain other creditors applied to the High Court at Bombay, in its insolvency jurisdiction, against all the members of the debtor firm, praying that they might be adjudicated insolvent under 11 & 12 Viet. c. 21. An order was made accordingly, and at the same time a vesting order, vesting the property of the debtors in the Official Assignee of Bombay. The Official Assignee, who is the appellant here, applied to the Insolvent Court at Amritsar to abstain from realizing the property of the debtors, and asked that that property should be made over to him. An order was made accordingly, and at the same time a vesting order, vesting the property of the debtors in the Official Assignee of Bombay. The Official Assignee, who is the appellant here, applied to the Insolvent Court at Amritsar to abstain from realizing the property of the debtors, and asked that that property should be made over to him. The Amritsar Court refused the application, holding that the property of the debtors in the Punjab had vested in a receiver appointed by the Court, and that therefore there was no property of the debtors in the Punjab upon which the subsequent vesting order made by the Bombay Court could take effect. Against this refusal there was an appeal to the Chief Court, and that Court held that the Amritsar Court was wrong in saying that the property in the Punjab was vested in the receiver, but held further that the order appealed against was right on the ground that the property in question was by law vested in the Court, and therefore could not pass under the subsequent vesting order of the Bombay Court. The facts which have been stated are those which appear to their Lordships material for the present appeal, which is brought against the order of the Chief Court. It is clear that under the insolvency system established by the Imperial Act the High Court of Bombay, if unimpeded by any other Court, can effectually administer the estate of an insolvent in such a case as the present. The question raised upon this appeal is whether proceedings under the Punjab Laws Act control the powers of the Bombay Court. It would be matter for regret if the powers of one Court to administer an estate completely were restrained by those of another Court which can only do so locally and partially. But it appears to their Lordships that no such inconvenience necessarily arises. Under the Imperial Act 11 & 12 Viet. c. 21, when an adjudication is made by the Court which is now the High Court of Bombay, the estate of the debtor vests in the Official Assignee and he is to administer it. But it appears to their Lordships that no such inconvenience necessarily arises. Under the Imperial Act 11 & 12 Viet. c. 21, when an adjudication is made by the Court which is now the High Court of Bombay, the estate of the debtor vests in the Official Assignee and he is to administer it. What has been held by the Chief Court is that, in the present case, that law did not apply to property in the Punjab which had belonged to the debtors concerned, because that property had, before the date of the vesting order of the Bombay Court, been transferred under the Punjab Laws Act already referred to the Punjab Court. The question therefore is whether the Chief Court was right in holding that the property in the Punjab had vested in that Court so as to exclude the operation of the Bombay vesting order. Their Lordships are unable to agree with the learned judges of the Chief Court. The section of the Punjab Laws Act on which the power of the Punjab Court depends for the present purposes is as follows Sect. 27 says " The property of the insolvent shall be sold or administered under the direction of the Court, either through the agency of its own officers or of assignees to be appointed by the Court, in the manner most conducive to the interest of the creditors, and the proceeds shall be divided rateably amongst them." It appears to their Lordships to be clear that under the Punjab Laws Act what is entrusted to the Punjab Court is merely administration, and that under that Act no transfer of property takes place. Their Lordships regret that they have to deal with this question in an appeal heard ex parte. The difficulty thus arising is diminished, however, by the fact that the question is purely one of law. Their Lordships will therefore humbly advise His Majesty that this appeal should be allowed, and the judgments of the Chief Court of the Punjab and of the Insolvent Estates Court, Amritsar, set aside with costs in both Courts, and in lieu thereof it should be declared that the property of the insolvents in the Punjab is vested in the Official Assignee, Bombay. The costs of this appeal are to be taxed as between solicitor and client and paid out of the insolvents estate.