1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.483 OF 2005 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.187 OF 2004 IN NOTICE NO.N/24 OF 2004 ... Naresh Kunjlal Gupta ...Appellant v/s. SICOM Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents ... Mr.Sachin Shetye with Mr.S.H.Parikh i/b Ramesh Sarogi for the Appellant. Mr.Kishor Jain i/b Mr.P.V.Shah for Respondent No.1. ... CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & V.R.KINGAONKAR,JJ DATED: 8 th April, 2010 P.C.: 1. By this Appeal, the Appellant challenges the order passed by the learned single Judge dated 18-1-2005 in Notice of Motion No.187 of 2004. That notice of motion 2 was taken out by the Appellant for setting aside Insolvency Notice No.N/24 of 2004. It appears that on the basis of the same decree, insolvency notice was served on the judgment debtor Nos. 1 & 3. They have taken out Notice of Motion for setting aside that insolvency notice. That Notice of motion was dismissed by the learned single Judge of this Court. The learned single Judge on finding that the questions that are to be considered in this Notice of Motion have already been considered by the another learned single Judge of this Court in Notice of Motion taken out by the judgment debtors Nos. 1 & 3., dismissed the Notice of Motion for the same reasons that were given by the learned single Judge in other Notice of Motion. 2. Now, we have been pointed out that the order of the learned single Judge, 3 Mr.Justice R.I. Rebello passed in Notice of Motion No.82 of 2004, which is relied on by the learned single Judge for passing the order which is impugned in this Appeal, has been confirmed by the Appellate Court by order dated 29 th March, 2005 passed in Appeal No.200 of 2005. In this view of the matter, therefore, there is nothing that remains to be considered in this Appeal. 3. The learned Counsel for the Appellant, however, submitted that Insolvency Notice No.24 of 2004 was not actually served on him. But we have been pointed out that there is an order made by the Insolvency Registrar holding service of Insolvency Notice No.24 of 2004 is good service on the Appellant and that order was never challenged by the appellant. 4 4. In this view of matter, therefore, there is no substance in the appeal. Appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (V.R.KINGAONKAR, J.)