JUDGMENT : 1. The applts. presented an insolvency petn. against the resp. Rameshwar Bhagawandas on 23-9-1943, alleging that he had with intent to defraud his creditors departed from his house and usual place of business on 19-7-1943 and since then secluded himself so as to deprive the creditors of the means of communication with him and, has intimated that he was suspending payment of his debts, that Rameshwar's brother Bulkhiram had on the same day removed books of accounts and other goods from the shop. The debts mentioned in the petn. consist of : "1. Due to petnr. Ramchandra : Rs. 262-2-9 Balance of the price of silver bars Rs. 4432-12-0. Damages on accounts of breach of contract for forward purchase of silver bars. Rs. 78-10-0 Interest according to the custom of the market. 2. Due to Gokuldas : Rs. 197-3-6, Damages on account of breach of contract for forward purchase of silver bars." 2. The case was act down for hearing on 23-11-43, but on 25-9-1948 Rameshwar appeared by a pleader Babu Ram Gopal and on 27-9-1943, presented an appln. (p. 3) denying his liability. Inter alia he contended that the transaction in forward contracts were against law and created no liability in view of Circular No. 5 of 1970 (St.). The creditors' petn. was dismissed by the learned Dist. J. Ujjain and the creditors have come up in appeal. 3. It is conceded that the relevant provisions of the Gwalior Insolvency law are identical with those of the Indian Provincial Insolvency Act. The first question for determination on the admission of the petn. was whether the creditors were entitled to present the petn. that is whether on the creditors' allegation there was : (i) A debt owing by the debtor to the creditors amounting Rs. 500 and (ii) The debt, is a liquidated sum payable either immediately or at some certain future time; and (iii) The aot of insolvency has occurred within three months before the presentation of the petn. 4. Unfortunately the lower Ct. straightway proceeded to record evidence, a large mass of which is utterly irrelevant and there was deplorable laxity in the proceedings until the matter was. considered by the present learned Judge. The law of Insolvency is mainly designed for the protection of creditors and the relief of debtors. Govind Ram v. Kunj Behari Lal, 46 ALL. Unfortunately the lower Ct. straightway proceeded to record evidence, a large mass of which is utterly irrelevant and there was deplorable laxity in the proceedings until the matter was. considered by the present learned Judge. The law of Insolvency is mainly designed for the protection of creditors and the relief of debtors. Govind Ram v. Kunj Behari Lal, 46 ALL. 398 ; (A. I. R. (11) 1924 ALL. 341 F. B.), the object being to distribute the debtor's property fairly and expeditiously among his creditors and to give the debtor a fresh start in life, unless he is found to have committed wilful fraud. The object of law is apt to be defeated by undue delay as in the present case and security of business transactions is likely to be affected. 5. An essential condition for the foundation of a creditor's petn. is that the debt must be a liquidated sum. There must, therefore, be a certain sum admittedly due and payable to the person who presents the petn. A claim for damages for nonperformance of a contract of a sale cannot ordinarily be within the meaning of a "liquidated sum" and it has accordingly been held in R. v. Hopkins, (1896)1 Q. B. 652 and In re Miller, (1901) 1 Q. B. 51, that a liability to pay damages is not a liquidated sum, A view contrary to this appears to have been taken in In re Dholan, A.I.R. (6) 1919 Sind 1: (13 S. L. R. 187). The question considered therein was however slightly different viz., whether in the case of cross contracts not otherwise vitiated one could be set off against the other and the difference in the prices considered to be a liquidated sum. Fawcett J. C. expressed himself on the plea of the custom of the market in such cases in the following manner : "(P.2) For if A has to deliver to B a thing which under another contract B has to deliver to A, it is obvious that among rational men the arrangement would be to set off the two transactions and not to go through the unnecessary expense and trouble of delivery from one to the other." 6. This and the further observation in the case leave no doubt in my mind that the learned Judge's view is limited to contracts in which by the process of mutual adjustment of contracts for identical goods of the same quantity, a mere mathematical calculation is sufficient to ascertain the balance due from the one to the other; and such sum can well be said to be certain admittedly due, and payable. The case can however have no application where the alleged contract and its validity or the need for its performance are in question. I, therefore, hold that the finding of the learned lower Ct. that there is no proof of a liquidated sum over Rs. 500 is correct. 7. In this view it is unnecessary to consider the operation of the circular No. 5 of 1970 (St.). except in so far as it affords a ground for enquiry into the claim for damages and thus makes the same unliquidated. I would leave the question for consideration in an appropriate suit. 8. It appears from the statement of creditor Ramchandra that Rameshwar and his three brothers own the business shop with which the contracts are alleged to have been made. Notices were given to all of these and Ramchandra admits that he had got replies prior to the filing of the petn. The postmarks on the envelope containing the notice to Rameshwar shows that it was delivered to the addressee on 29-7-1943 presumably at Ujjain. The postal receipts signed by the brothers of Rameshwar have been tendered in evidence, but curiously enough his receipt is not forthcoming nor is the reply which Ramchandra admits to have received Rameshwar was admittedly in Ujjain on 26-7-1943 according to the statement in the petn and ha appeared voluntarily in Ct. within two days of the petn. itself. Ramchandra admits that after his return Rameshwar has all along been in Ujjain and it is significant that though the four brothers are considered responsible for the alleged transactions no action has been taken for realisation of the amount due save by the present petn. in insolvency. 9. In this back-ground the question of assets is prominent. Ramchandra admits that the father of Rameshwar, left behind him property worth a lakh or two. He further admits that the value of the property has now doubled itself. in insolvency. 9. In this back-ground the question of assets is prominent. Ramchandra admits that the father of Rameshwar, left behind him property worth a lakh or two. He further admits that the value of the property has now doubled itself. The presence of Rameshwar in Ujjain save perhaps a short period and the existence of the means to pay, dislodge the plea of the petnrs. that an act of insolvency had been committed and the petn. appears under the circumstances to be intended as a short cut to obtain by pressure the settlement of a claim for action and not a liquidated sum. 10. It was urged that evidence should have been taken in proof of the burden on the property. There is however, no suggestion of a burden on the property either in the petn or the statement of Ramchandra and it would serve no useful purpose to embark on a fresh enquiry into the assets of the petnr. particularly since the appln. must fail on the decision regarding the existence of a "debt." 11. I dismiss the appeal with costs.