1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION jmi I.R.N. NO. 2 OF 2010 IN INSOLVENCY PETITION NO. 60 OF 1998. Re : M/s. Jayantilal Bhimji & Sons And Ors. ..Insolvents. State Bank of India. ..Petitioning Creditors. Ex-parte : The Official Assignee of Bombay. ..Petitioner. .... Mr. K. J. Somane, for Insolvent Nos. 4 & 5. Mr.Y.C. Parikh, O.A. present. .... CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 5TH MAY 2010. P. C. Since the insolvents were not co-operating with the Official Assignee, the Official Assignee filed the above rule nisi seeking necessary directions against the insolvent nos. 4 and 5. 2. Mr. K.J. Somane, learned Advocate for insolvent nos. 4 and 5, appeared on 16th February 2010 and submitted that the insolvent no. 5 shall comply with the requisitions set out in the rule nisi within a period of two weeks. The matter was therefore adjourned to 2nd March 2010. 3. On 2nd March 2010, the learned Advocate 2 appearing for the insolvent no.5 produced a medical certificate dated 26th February 2010, stating that the insolvent has sprained his feet, has cracked heels, is suffering from acidity and is advised to take rest for a month. No documents in support of the alleged problems suffered by the insolvent no.5 were produced alongwith the medical certificate, thereby raising doubts about the contents of the said medical certificate. However as a last chance, insolvent no. 5 was directed to comply with the order dated 16th February 2010 within a period of two weeks and the matter was adjourned to 23rd March 2010. 4. On 26th March 2010, this Court was once again informed that the insolvent no. 5 has not complied with the earlier orders passed by this Court. Since the learned Advocate appearing for insolvent nos. 4 and 5 submitted that the insolvent nos. 4 and 5 are of advanced age, one more chance was given to the insolvent nos. 4 and 5 to appear before the Official Assignee on 6th April 2010. Thereafter, the insolvent no. 4 had remained present in Court on 5th April 2010. However, he has not appeared before the Official Assignee in compliance with the above orders of the Court. 3 5. On 7th April 2010, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the insolvent no. 5 undertook on behalf of the insolvent no. 5, to remain present before the Official Assignee on 26th April 2010 at 3.00 p.m. The undertaking was accepted. The learned Advocate on instructions also submitted that the insolvent no.4 shall remain present before the Official Assignee on 26th April 2010 or on 3rd May 2010 at 3.00 p.m. 6. The insolvent no. 5 has breached the undertaking given to this Court by not remaining present on 26th April 2010 at 3.00 p.m. The insolvent no. 4 has also failed to appear before the Official Assignee on 26th April 2010 at 3.00 p.m. or on 3rd May 2010 at 3.00 p.m. In view thereof, the insolvent nos. 4 and 5 are in willful breach of the above orders passed by this Court. It is clear that the insolvent nos. 4 and 5 are avoiding to comply with the requisitions set out in the rule nisi. In view thereof, rule nisi is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). [ S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. ]