Judgment :- 1. The only question in these revision petitions is whether in the computation of time for presentation of an insolvency petition the period when Court remains closed is excluded. In Chenchuramana Reddi v. Arunachalam (AIR. 1935 Mad. 857 F.B.) a Full Bench of the Madras High Court held such period not to be excluded. A contrary view was taken by a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Raja Pande v. Sheopujan Pande (AIR. 1942 All. 429) and by a Full Bench of the Travancore-Cochin High Court in Gopala Pillai v. Sankara Iyer (1954 KLT. 535). 2. S.9(1)(c) of the Cochin Insolvency Act, under which this case has arisen, is identical in expression with S.9(1)(c) of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920. In fact the latter Act was the precedent that the Cochin Act followed closely. The section reads: "9(1). A creditor shall not be entitled to present an insolvency petition against a debtor unless xxx xxx xxx xxx (c) the act of insolvency on which the petition is grounded has occurred within three months before the presentation of the petition." 3. The wording of the Section may tempt a construction that requires the computation of time backward from the date of presentation of the petition to the date of occurrence of the act of insolvency to see if it exceeds three months, as has been held in the Madras case cited above. But, the General Clauses Act provides the principle of construction of statutory computation of time, and "whatever the General Clauses Act says, whether as regards the meanings of words or as regards legal principles, has to be read into every statute to which it applies": Chief Inspector of Mines v. Karam Chand Thapar (AIR. 1961 SC 838, 843) That principle is in S.10 of the Act and is thus: "Whereby any Act, any act or proceeding is allowed to be done or taken in any court... within a prescribed period, then if the court ... is closed on ... the last day of the prescribed period, the act or proceeding shall be considered as done or taken in due time if it is done or taken on the next day afterwards on which the court ... is open." 4. within a prescribed period, then if the court ... is closed on ... the last day of the prescribed period, the act or proceeding shall be considered as done or taken in due time if it is done or taken on the next day afterwards on which the court ... is open." 4. In our view, S.9(1)(c) of the Insolvency Act comes straightly within the plain wording of the above principle, and therefore in all oases where the period of three months from the occurrence of an act of insolvency expires during a vacation the presentation of an insolvency petition on the reopening day is in time. 5. Counsel for the petitioners contended, relying on the dictum in Chenchuramana Reddi v. Arunachalam [AIR. 1935 Mad. 857) that an act of insolvency ceases to be such on the expiration of three months of its occurrence. We regret our inability to accept that contention. An act of insolvency is defined in S.6 of the insolvency Act. It provides that a debtor commits an act of insolvency if he does any of the eight categories of acts specified therein. It is the nature of the act done that is to determine whether it amounts to an act of insolvency or not. If an act was an act of insolvency at its commission, it is difficult to understand how it would become otherwise a short time afterwards. We find no provision in the Insolvency Act which says that an act of insolvency ceases to be such on the expiry of three months, or any time after its occurrence. It may be that after a period a creditor cannot move proceedings in insolvency grounded on that act, but that need not necessarily mean that the act has ceased to be an act of insolvency if it is within the definition of S.6. Lapse of time may shed its fangs, but does not work any metamorphosis. It is pertinent to note here that the legislature has, without changing the wording of S.9[1][c] of the Provincial Insolvency Act, added a proviso to it reading "Provided that where the said period of three months referred to in clause (c) expires on a day when the court is closed, the insolvency petition may be presented on the day on which the Court re-opens." 6. We feel certain that the proviso has not brought about any change in the enacted law but has only clarified the position of which contrary views came to be taken in different courts. These Civil Revision Petitions fail and are dismissed hereby. We make no order as to costs here. Dismissed.