Judgment :- Gulab C.Gupta, J. This is an appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent read with O.36, Rule 10 of the Original Side Rules and Sec.8(2)(b) of the Presidency Towns Insolvency-Act, 1909 against the judgment dated 25. 1990 passed by Janarthanam,!. in the Insolvency Jurisdiction of this Court adjudicating the appellants as insolvents and ordering that all assets and effects of the appellants vest in the Official Assignee of this Court for administration. 2. It appears that the first respondent loaned Rs.40,000 to the appellants on execution of a promissory note in his favour. Since the appellants did not honour their due by discharging the loan, the said respondent filed a civil suit in the Court of the 5th Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras for recovery of the said amount. The suit after due prosecution was decreed with costs. Even thereafter the appellants did not pay any amount and consequently the first respondent issued In- ‘solvency Notice No.47/86 calling upon them to pay the amount due under the decree within thirty days from the date of receipt of the notice and also intimating his intention to take steps against them under Sec.9(2) of the Act for their failure to comply with the demand. The notice could not be personally served on the appellants and was consequently published in a local daily newspaper. Even after the publication of the notice the appellants did not make any payment towards the decree. The first respondent/ petitioning creditor thereafter filed the Insolvency Petition before this Court praying for the adjudication of the appellants as insolvents. The appellants challenge the validity of the insolvency notice and questioned by filing their common counter before the learned Judge. The parties also examined witnesses. On a consideration of the materials so placed by the parties the learned Judge held that the appellants are unable to discharge their debt which amounts to an act of insolvency under Sec.9(2) of the Act. This Court, therefore, adjudicated the appellants as insolvents. It is this judgment and order which is impugned in this appeal. 3. On a consideration of the materials so placed by the parties the learned Judge held that the appellants are unable to discharge their debt which amounts to an act of insolvency under Sec.9(2) of the Act. This Court, therefore, adjudicated the appellants as insolvents. It is this judgment and order which is impugned in this appeal. 3. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants in the impugned order are: (.1) there was no valid notice about the discharge of debt served on the appellants and hence there was no act of insolvency entitling the Court to adjudicate the appellants as insolvents; and (2) since the decree-holder had the remedy of executing the decree in accordance with law and seeking discharge of the debt, moving the Insolvency Court was without jurisdiction. 4. It appears that the appellants have settled the claim of the first respondent/ creditor during the pendency of this appeal and that is why no one appears in this Court to represent him in spile of notice. The Official Assignee, however, has appeared and submitted that there was no illegality in the impugned order and hence the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. That there was a decree passed by a court of competent jurisdiction against the appellants is not in dispute. That the said decree has not been executed under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure is also not in dispute. Under the circumstances, the question requiring consideration of this Court is whether the appellants have committed an act of insolvency within the meaning of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909. Sub-sec.(2) of this provision which is relevant for the purpose as under: “Without prejudice to the provisions of Sub-sec.(1), a debtor commits an act of insolvency if a creditor, who has obtained a decree or order against him for the payment of money (being a decree or order which has become final and the execution whereof has not been stayed), has served on him a notice (hereinafter in this section referred to as the insolvency notice) as provided in Sub-sec.(3) and the debtor does not comply with that notice within the period specified therein.” 6. Sub-sec.(3) of this section provides that the notice shall be in the prescribed form and be served in the prescribed manner specifying the amount due under the decree and requiring the judgment-debtor rather than the insolvent to comply with it within one month. The notice should also specify the consequences of non-compliance with the notice. A fair reading of Sub-sec.(2) would indicate that it requires serving a notice by the respondent on the appellants. A perusal of the impugned order would indicate that the notice in accordance with Sub-sec.(3) was given by the decree-holder to the appellants. The notice was, however, addressed to the appellants at No.18, Varasiththi, Vinayakar Koil Street. This number is not the correct number and the correct number is 19. That is the next door of the building. It is also apparent that because of the personal non-service the notice was published in a daily newspaper and yet nothing whatsoever was done by the appellants towards the discharge of the debt. Learned Single Judge has held that this was sufficient compliance of the Rules and hence the appellants were guilty of act of insolvency. The submission on behalf of the appellants, however, is that even the Insolvency Court had published notice of its proceedings in daily Hindu on 111. 1989 and since the appellants had not appeared in the Court to defend themselves an ex parte adjudication order was passed. The said order was challenged in this Court in O.S.A.No.16 of 1990 and this Court by order dated 13. 1990 set aside the said order and directed the Insolvency Court to afford opportunity to the appellants to contest the insolvency proceedings on merits. This judgment, according to the learned counsel for the appellants is sufficient to hold that publication of insolvency notice in a Tamil daily newspaper was not sufficient for the purpose and this Court is unable to accept the aforesaid submission. The judgment is O.S.A.No.16 of 1990 does not deal with the insolvency notice. It also does not lay down that publication of notice in the newspaper was not enough. The Division Bench granted the appellants an opportunity to contest the insolvency proceedings only because this was considered to be fair and proper. Under the circumstances, the said judgment cannot be relied on to hold that publication of notice was not sufficient compliance. It also does not lay down that publication of notice in the newspaper was not enough. The Division Bench granted the appellants an opportunity to contest the insolvency proceedings only because this was considered to be fair and proper. Under the circumstances, the said judgment cannot be relied on to hold that publication of notice was not sufficient compliance. Then the factum of service of notice was within the knowledge of the appellants atleast at the time they filed the a foresaid Appeal No.16 of 1990. They could have, therefore, applied to the Insolvency Court under Sec.9(5) for setting aside the said insolvency notice. Since the same has not been done, the notice must be held to have reached the stage where its legal validity could not be challenged. This Court, therefore, finds no illegality in the impugned order in this behalf. 7. As regards the submission that the decree could have been executed in accordance with provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is sufficient to notice the provisions of Sec.9(2) of the Act which has been inserted by the Insolvency Laws Amendment Act, 1978. The provision deals with a case where the decree has become final, but, the payments under it have not been made by the judgment-debtor. All cases relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants in support of his submissions are cases prior to 1978 and must be held to be irrelevant for the purpose. 8. The appeal is held to be devoid of substance and is dismissed. No costs.