JUDGMENT - M.S. RANE, J. :---This application is made by the Insolvent/debtor seeking the relief that the Order of Adjudication dated 4th October, 1994 passed by this Court in Insolvency Petition No. 25 of 1994 be set aside and he be given an opportunity to contest the matter on merits. 2. The Debtor has also claimed various other reliefs such as ordering inquiry and initiation of criminal proceedings against one Jitendra D. Kanse, the employee of the petitioning Creditor for making false affidavit of service of process in the petition upon the Debtor. At the outset, it may be stated that the principal ground urged by the Debtor in support of this application is of non-service of the Insolvency petition herein as also the Insolvency Notice issued therein upon him. In as much as the Debtor has alleged fraud by the petitioning Creditor in the matter of service of process of the petition and the Insolvency Notice. 3. It is noticed that the Petitioning Creditor is the Award holder passed by the Co-operative Court against the Debtor and two others who are not before the Court. It is further noticed that the petitioning Creditor is the Co-operative Credit Society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and they filed a dispute before the Co-operative Court for the recovery of certain amount advanced to the principal borrowers (not parties to this petition) and the Debtor herein who was a guarantor in which Award has been made by the Co-operative Court, including the Debtor herein. 4. As the said Award remained uncomplied with the Petitioning Creditor took recourse to the Insolvency proceedings under the provisions of Presidency Towns Insolvency Act. They issued notice being Notice No. N/164 of 1993 dated 11th November, 1993 which according to the petitioning Creditor was served upon the Debtor. A joint affidavit of service made by Shri Jitendra D. Kanse, employee of the Creditor and the Bailiff of the Sheriff of Bombay has been filed being dated 7th March, 1994 which shows that the Debtor refused to accept the notice and therefore a duplicate copy thereof was affixed on the place of his business mentioned in the title. As however, the Debtor did not respond, the said notice was decided exparte. 5. As however, the Debtor did not respond, the said notice was decided exparte. 5. Then the petitioning creditor presented petition before this Court on 23rd March, 1994 seeking order of adjudication against the Debtor and according to the petitioning Creditor the service of process was effected and joint affidavit of service made by said Jitendra D. Kanse and Bailiff of the Sheriff of Bombay was filed being dated 7th June, 1994 which mentions that the Debtor refused to accept the service which refusal was accepted and treated as a proper service. 6. Then on 4th October, 1994, the Court proceeded to grant the petition of the Petitioning Creditor and passing an Order of Adjudication against the Debtor in his absence. It is the said order which is sought to be set aside in this application. 7. As stated the Debtor has sought to set aside the Order of Adjudication on the ground of non-service of the process in the petition and there being a fraud perpetuated with regard to the service of the process in the petition. 8. The matter was argued at great length. The Petitioning Creditor has filed the affidavit-in-reply which is tendered in the Court to-day itself. The Notice of Motion has also been directed against Jitendra D. Kanse, an employee of the Petitioning Creditor, who is co-deponent alongwith the bailiff of the Sheriff of Bombay, who accompanied the bailiff for effecting service of the process in the Insolvency Notice as also in the petition and alleged to have identified the Debtor. However, the said Kanse who remained present in the Court and who has been duly served with the process in this application has not chosen to file his affidavit in reply. More comments later on. 9. A short point to be considered is whether there is a proper service of the process of the petition upon the Debtor? 10. The joint affidavit of service dated 7th June, 1994 shows that on 29th April, 1994 at 5.45 p.m. said Kanse accompanied by Shri Gaikwad, Bailiff of Sheriff of Bombay, went to the business premises of the Debtor at "Ruby Tube Traders, 8, Piru Lane, Bhendi Bazar, Bombay-400 009". 10. The joint affidavit of service dated 7th June, 1994 shows that on 29th April, 1994 at 5.45 p.m. said Kanse accompanied by Shri Gaikwad, Bailiff of Sheriff of Bombay, went to the business premises of the Debtor at "Ruby Tube Traders, 8, Piru Lane, Bhendi Bazar, Bombay-400 009". The said affidavit shows that the Debtor was present in the shop at the time when the bailiff and the said representative of the petitioning creditor visited the place mentioned above but the Debtor refused to accept the service of the petition and affidavit in support thereof and therefore they affixed the copies thereof on his business premises. The affidavit also shows that the Debtor was pointed out and identified by said Jitendra D. Kanse. 11. The debtor in his affidavit in support of this application has stated that on the date in question when the service alleged to have been effected, he was not present at the shop premises at all nor he refused to accept the service. He states that he is not concerned at all with the business of "Ruby Tube Traders" and has not been carrying on business in that name at that place at all. He states that he carries on business in the name and style of "Iron Scrap Corporation". The debtor in his affidavit further states that on the date in question and at the time when the bailiff alongwith the representative of the Creditor Mr. Kanse alleged to have visited, his shop premises was closed on account of accidental death of his brother by name Abbas just couple of days prior to the date when the alleged service was effected. He has relied upon the Death Certificate issued by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay which is annexed as Exhibit `B to the affidavit. In addition he has filed affidavits of three neighbours viz. (1) Nasir Ahmed Khan; (2) Mohammed Iqbal Abdul Gani Shaikh and (3) Mohammed Anis Farooki who have stated about the death of the brother of the debtor and the facts of shop being kept close on the days in question. In addition, the debtor has also relied upon the photograph of the signboard of his shop which is at Exhibit "C" to the supporting affidavit, where the name of his business has been described as "Iron Scrap Corporation" and address being "Shop No.7/8, Piru Lane, Bhendi Bazar, Bombay-400 009". In addition, the debtor has also relied upon the photograph of the signboard of his shop which is at Exhibit "C" to the supporting affidavit, where the name of his business has been described as "Iron Scrap Corporation" and address being "Shop No.7/8, Piru Lane, Bhendi Bazar, Bombay-400 009". The debtor emphasised that he is in no way concerned with the business of "Ruby Tube Traders". It is stated that the said representative of the Creditor Mr. Kanse took the bailiff at the wrong place i.e. Ruby Tube Traders and not the business of the debtor and thus has misled the bailiff. 12. During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the debtor appearing in support of this application pointed out the descripancy in the address of the debtor. In asmuch as in the Insolvency Notice being No. N/164 of 1993 in a title the residential place of the debtor has been shown as "8, Piru Lane, Bhendi Bazar, Bombay - 400 003" whereas in the petition for adjudication the said place has been shown as the place of business of the debtor. 13. Referring to all this, it is reiterated by and on behalf of the debtor that there are irregularities in effecting service upon him. In fact no process has been served upon him. 14. As stated earlier, the Petitioning Creditor has filed the affidavit-in-reply. The name of the deponent is Mohamed Husain Merchant, the Manager of the petitioning creditor. In the said affidavit it is stated that the service of the process in the petition as also in the Insolvency Notice has been properly effected and the case of the Judgment debtor that no process was served has been denied. In para 19 of the said reply, the petitioning creditors have sought to explain the discrepancy in address as appearing in the Insolvency Notice and in the adjudication petition. They have tried to explain how they described the name of the Judgment Debtor as "Ruby Tube Traders". It is sought to be explained that sometime during the visit at the shop business premises of the debtor, their representative had noticed signboard known as "Rafee Tube Traders" and by mistake they have typed by describing as "Ruby Tube Traders". According to the petitioning creditor that is because of confusion". 15. It is sought to be explained that sometime during the visit at the shop business premises of the debtor, their representative had noticed signboard known as "Rafee Tube Traders" and by mistake they have typed by describing as "Ruby Tube Traders". According to the petitioning creditor that is because of confusion". 15. As stated earlier the main issue is whether in this circumstance of the case as mentioned hereinabove, the service and the process of the adjudication petition can be said to have been duly and properly effected and my answer to this is in the negative. 16. First of all, the proceedings of this nature viz. Insolvency proceedings are of a different nature. It invites very very serious and grave consequences. In asmuch as the order of adjudication is of a serious nature and destroys ones status and credibility in the Society. It is of prime importance that the person sought to be condemned as Insolvent is provided reasonable and proper opportunity. Due notice thereof is a first step. 17. It is necessary to state that the statute-The Presidency Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") and the Rules made thereunder provide sufficient safeguard and guidelines. In that sub-section (3) of section 9 of the said Act prescribes the form of notice and the manner of service. Section 9-A which is Maharashtra Amendment is more comprehensive as regards issuance and service of insolvency notice upon the debtor. Section 2(d) postulates what is meant by "prescribed" i.e. prescribed by Rules. Section 112 of the said Act empowers the Insolvency Court to frame the Rules. This Court has framed Rules. Rules 10, 11, 34, 40, 44, 46, 52-A, 52-B, 52-D and 52-E provide the form of notice, sealing, manner of service, hours of service, etc. in the Insolvency proceedings at different stages. Under these Rules adequate provisions have been made in that behalf. This Court has framed Rules. Rules 10, 11, 34, 40, 44, 46, 52-A, 52-B, 52-D and 52-E provide the form of notice, sealing, manner of service, hours of service, etc. in the Insolvency proceedings at different stages. Under these Rules adequate provisions have been made in that behalf. In particular Rule 52-E provides:-- "Service of notice : An insolvency notice shall be served and service thereof shall be proved in the like manner as is by these Rules prescribed for the service of a creditors petition." Rules 61 and 62 are also relevant in the context, which lay down:-- "Service of petition: Service of a creditors petition shall be effected by an Officer of the Court or by the Creditor or his Attorney, or by some person in their employ, by delivering to the debtor or the person upon whom it is to be served a sealed copy of the filed petition; provided that if personal service cannot be effected, the Court may extend the time for hearing the petition, or if the Court is satisfied by affidavit or other evidence that the debtor or such person is keeping out of the way to avoid such service, or service of any other legal process, or that for any other cause prompt personal service cannot be effected, it may order substituted service to be made by delivery of the petition to some adult inmate at his usual or last known residence or place of business, or by registered letter or in such other manner as the Court may direct, and that such petition shall then be deemed to have been duly served on the debtor or such person." "Proof of service : Service of a petition shall be proved by affidavit with a sealed copy of the petition attached, which shall be filed in Court forthwith after the service." 18. It thus clearly emerges as to how legislature has taken ample measures by making specific as also elaborate provisions in the said Rules with regard to the service of process upon the debtor at various stages. This is done bearing in mind the serious consequences that follow from the order of the Insolvency Courts. 19. In the matter herein, the Petitioning Creditors themselves have conceded that there was a "confusion" in the description of the debtor and his address. This is done bearing in mind the serious consequences that follow from the order of the Insolvency Courts. 19. In the matter herein, the Petitioning Creditors themselves have conceded that there was a "confusion" in the description of the debtor and his address. What is more important is that, despite specific allegations of fraud against said Shri Kanse, he did not bother to file any affidavit although the Notice of Motion was specifically directed against him and served upon him. The attempt was made to file affidavit of said Shri Kanse at belated stage when Court started dictating the judgment. In that, after conclusion of argument advanced at length yesterday i.e. on 7th March, 1995, the Court started dictation of the judgment, which remained inconclusive for want of time as the Court rose for the day and commenced today i.e. on 8th March, 1995, when attempt was made to tender the affidavit of Shri Kanse, which was objected by the Debtor and rightly and justifiably so and was not accepted by the Court as the same was an after thought device and unexplained as to why not filed earlier which would have facilitated the debtor to answer. This only reflects upon the conduct of the petitioning creditors and their employee, needing no further comment. 20. The conspectus of the above discussion is that there arises grave doubt, a legitimate one about the service upon the debtor. In the circumstances, it has to be held that there was no proper service effected upon the Debtor as required under the Rules and as a result thereof the order of adjudication passed against him has to be set aside. 21. In the Notice of Motion there are other reliefs claimed. But in my view the same will not need any more consideration in view of the fact that the Court is setting aside the Order of Adjudication by allowing the application of the Debtor. Hence the following Order :-- ORDER (a) Notice of Motion made absolute in terms of prayers (a) and (b). The Petitioning Creditors are ordered and directed to pay costs to the debtor herein quantified at Rs.3,000/- being condition precedent before taking any proceedings in this petition. (b) Request is made on behalf of the Petitioning Creditor for stay of the operation of this order. Application rejected. The Petitioning Creditors are ordered and directed to pay costs to the debtor herein quantified at Rs.3,000/- being condition precedent before taking any proceedings in this petition. (b) Request is made on behalf of the Petitioning Creditor for stay of the operation of this order. Application rejected. (c) It is stated that the debtor as per ad-interim order has deposited certain amount in the office of the Insolvency Registrar. The debtor is allowed to withdraw the said amount after the period of four weeks from to-day. (d) Issuance of certified copy is expedited. Order of adjudication set aside. *****