:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL APPEAL APPEAL NO.764 OF 2004 NO.764 OF 2004 NO.764 OF 2004 IN IN IN NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE OF MOTION NO.173 OF 2004 OF MOTION NO.173 OF 2004 OF MOTION NO.173 OF 2004 IN IN IN INSOLVENCY INSOLVENCY INSOLVENCY PETITION NO.82 OF 2004 PETITION NO.82 OF 2004 PETITION NO.82 OF 2004 Re:M/s Shree Ratan Industrial Corporation & Ors. ..Appellants V/s Satish Shivkumar ..Respondent AND Official Assignee High Court ..Respondent Shri Palan i/b B.S. Chandrani for the Appellants Shri P.B. Kapadia for the respondent-creditor Shri A. Kothari, Official Assignee, present CORAM ; S.A.BOBDE AND A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATE : 24TH MARCH, 2009 P.C. 1. This is an appeal against an order of adjudication dated 2 0th July, 2004 in respect of an act of insolvency said to have been completed on 17th June, 2003. Earlier the learned Single Judge dismissed the notice of motion by setting aside the judgment, hence the appellants have preferred this appeal. Mr. Palan, the learned Counsel for the :2: appellants submitted that though there is a delay in taking out the proceeding for setting aside the order of adjudication, the delay is on account of the fact that the earlier Advocate gave an impression to the appellants that he is taking steps against the order of adjudication, whereas in fact no steps have been taken by him. This contention is supported by the affidavit of Advocate, Shri Jaywant dated 28-10-2004. We have heard Shri Palan, the learned Counsel for the appellants and Shri Kapadia, the learned Counsel for the creditors and the Official Assignee. The only contention of the Official Assignee is that two suits have been filed by the creditors and the said suits may be taken in to account for the purpose of determining whether the appellants can be said to be solvent. There is no merit in this contention since there is no decree in the suits on the basis of which it can be said that the appellants are the debtors who are unable to discharge their liabilities. Shri Kapadia, the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs in those suits states that he has no objection, if the adjudication is set aside since it would become easier for the plaintiffs in those suits to recover their dues if the appellant is not an insolvent. The :3: appellant has stated in the affidavit that there are no dues and that all the decree holders who had lodged their claims, have been paid by the official assignee, further the decree holders are satisfied fully and there are the creditors, whose claims are payable by the appellants. The appellants have further deposed that there are no Government dues. 2. Having regard to the uncontradictory facts, the appeal is allowed and the order of adjudication is set aside. No order as to costs. (S.A.BOBDE, (S.A.BOBDE, (S.A.BOBDE, J.) J.) J.) ( A.A. SAYED, J.) A.A. SAYED, J.) A.A. SAYED, J.)