Judgment:- 1. This notice of motion is taken out under section 34 of the presidency towns insolvency act, 1909 by the petitioning creditor against the insolvent shri rajesh dhirajlal vora interalia for the following reliefs: a) that this hon'ble court be pleased to issue warrant of arrest against the insolvent under section 34 of the presidency towns insolvency act, 1909 and commit the insolvent to civil prison till such time as this hon'ble court may deem fit. B) that this hon'ble court be pleased to issue directions to the senior police officer of the cuffe parade police station to arrest the insolvent for such time as this hon'ble court may determine and on such terms and as this hon'ble court may deem fit and proper; briefly set out are the facts in the matter: 2. Shri rajesh vora (the insolvent) is about 50 years old and a resident of flat no.l51/b admeasuring 3000 sq.ft. On the 15th floor of a building known as maker tower 'b' situated at cuffe parade, mumbai (the said flat). His mother and father were also adjudged insolvents. His father recently expired. The petitioning creditor had filed summary suit no.533 of 1998 against the insolvent for a decree for recovery of a sum of rs. 17,75,685/- with further interest of rs. 15,00,000/- @ 18% p.a. By an order dated 31 st march 2000 passed by this court, the suit was decreed against the insolvent. The insolvent preferred an appeal and the hon'ble appeal court by its order dated 31st july 2000 granted time to the insolvent pay the decretal amount in installments. The insolvent defaulted in making the payment,™ view of which the petitioning creditor got an insolvency notice issued against the insolvent. The insolvent took out a notice of motion for setting aside the said insolvency notice which was dismissed on 4th september 2001. The insolvent preferred an appeal from the said order of dismissal. By an order dated 25th september 2001, the hon'ble appeal court accepted the undertaking of the insolvent to pay to the petitioning creditor the decretal amount as per the minutes of order tendered in court by the parties. However, the insolvent failed to make payment as undertaken in the minutes of order, due to which by an order dated 5th august 2003, the insolvent was adjudged insolvent. However, the insolvent failed to make payment as undertaken in the minutes of order, due to which by an order dated 5th august 2003, the insolvent was adjudged insolvent. The insolvent filed his schedule of assets before the official assignee on 16th april 2005, according to which, he is indebted to various creditors aggregating to a sum of rs.7,18,56,855.69. According to the petitioning creditor, however, the debts of the insolvent far exceed the sum of rs.7,18,56,855.69. 3. The insolvent was not cooperating with the official assignee. He failed and neglected to attend meetings of the official assignee for his private examination and also failed and neglected to comply with the pending requisitions. He further failed to deposit the amount towards surrender value in respect of his life insurance policy, received by him after the date of the act of insolvency committed by him. As the insolvent did not comply with the requisitions raised by the official assignee, rule nisi was taken out by the official assignee, which was made absolute by this court by its order dated 4th december 2006. 4. Though the rule nisi was made absolute on 4th december 2006, the office of the official assignee/insolvency registrar got a warrant of arrest issued only on 2nd december 2009. Even thereafter, the office of the sheriff of bombay and the police at the cuffe parade police station were unable to arrest the insolvent. This court therefore, by its order dated 5th may 2010, directed an officer from the office of dy. Sheriff as well a responsible officer from the cuffe parade police station to remain present before this court on 6th may 2010. 5. On 6th may 2010, mr. M. g. Gaikwad, psi from cuffe parade police station was present before this court when the following order was passed: 1. In this matter rule nisi was made absolute by this court on 4th december, 2006. However, for various reasons, the office of the official assignee/ insolvency registrar got a warrant of arrest issued only on 2nd december, 2009. The warrant was served on the sheriff of bombay for execution on 7th december, 2007. In this matter rule nisi was made absolute by this court on 4th december, 2006. However, for various reasons, the office of the official assignee/ insolvency registrar got a warrant of arrest issued only on 2nd december, 2009. The warrant was served on the sheriff of bombay for execution on 7th december, 2007. It is unfortunate that though the insolvent stays at maker towers, cuffe parade, mumbai alongwith his family, the warrant has not been executed till date and the deputy sheriff in his report has stated that the cuffe parade police station has not been able to arrest the insolvent till date. Since the explanation was not found satisfactory, an order was passed yesterday (5th may, 2010) directing the deputy sheriff as well as a responsible officer from the cuffe parade police station to remain present before this court today at 11.00 a.m. 2. Today, the deputy sheriff is present in person. Mr. M.g. Gaikwad psi from cuffe parade police station is also present in court. Mr. Gaikwad assures the court that the orders passed by this court shall be complied with within two weeks from today and the insolvent shall be arrested from wherever he is found. The said assurance is accepted. 3. Office to issue fresh warrant to the concerned police station for execution. Upon arrest of the insolvent, he be confined to civil prison. 4. A copy of this order be forwarded to the deputy .commissioner of police, zone-1, mr. Vishwas nangre patil to look into the matter and ensure compliance of the orders of this court. 5. The petitioning creditor shall deposit the necessary diet charges. 6. Stand over to 15th june, 2010." 6. The insolvent thereafter appeared before this court and the order of arrest was stayed on his assurance that he would attend the office of the official assignee twice in a week i.e. Every monday and wednesday and would co-operate with the official assignee. 7. During this period, the court had directed the official assignee to take forcible possession of gala no. 15 in prakash industrial premises co-op. Society ltd., bharat industrial estate, t. J. road, shewri, mumbai belonging to the insolvent (the said gala), if necessary, with the help of the police. Accordingly, the official assignee took possession of the said gala with the help of police. 8. 15 in prakash industrial premises co-op. Society ltd., bharat industrial estate, t. J. road, shewri, mumbai belonging to the insolvent (the said gala), if necessary, with the help of the police. Accordingly, the official assignee took possession of the said gala with the help of police. 8. After the official assignee took possession of the said gala, an intervention application was taken out by way of notice of motion no.59 of 2010 in insolvency petition no.31 of 2002 by nilam suresh manek and viral suresh manek alleging that the insolvent has sold the said gala to them under an agreement dated 7th september 2007 which is registered under document no. 9609/07. The said nilam and viral manek have thereafter also filed a suit before this court seeking appropriate reliefs in respect of the said gala. In the course of arguments, nilam and viral manek informed the court that though the sale consideration in respect of the said gala is shown as rs.11,50,000/-, the actual consideration is rs.22,50,000/-. They also informed the court that a blank cheque of rs.22,51,000/- was issued by the insolvent to them on 31st may 2010. The said nilam and viral manek were therefore asked to set out the said facts on affidavit. 9. Accordingly they have filed an affidavit dated 29th october 2010 wherein they have annexed a memorandum of understanding (mou) dated 20th november 2006 entered into between the insolvent and maneks' prior to the execution of the final agreement for sale dated 7th september 2007. In the said mou, it is mentioned that the gala is sold by the insolvent to the maneks' for rs. 22,50,000/-. The maneks' have also produced before this court a cheque issued to them by the insolvent in the sum of rs.22,51,000/- dated.31st may 2010 wherein the payee's name is left blank. In the affidavit filed by the maneks', they have explained that after the official assignee sealed the said gala, shri suresh manek (deponent and constituted attorney of the maneks') met the insolvent, who assured him that the said gala would be released. At that time, the insolvent issued the said cheque dated 31st may 2010 for the sum of rs.22,51,0007- and handed over the same to shri suresh manek with instructions to handover the said cheque to the petitioning creditor, who was free to deposit the same in any name according to her convenience. At that time, the insolvent issued the said cheque dated 31st may 2010 for the sum of rs.22,51,0007- and handed over the same to shri suresh manek with instructions to handover the said cheque to the petitioning creditor, who was free to deposit the same in any name according to her convenience. The insolvent has admitted that he has issued a cheque of rs.22,51,000/- to the maneks'. 10. Since the advocate for the insolvent informed this court that he has received only rs.l 1,50,000/- towards sale consideration in respect of the said gala, out of which an amount of rs.6,00,000/- has already been paid to the society towards arrears of maintenance charges, this court, before passing any order in the above notice of motion directed the insolvent to deposit an amount of rs.5,50,000/- in this court. After delays and extensions granted by the court, the insolvent deposited an amount of rs.5,50,000/- with the official assignee. 11. It is submitted by the advocate for the petitioning creditor that in the aforesaid dishonest manner, the insolvent, who was adjudicated insolvent on 6th july 2003. Without informing the official assignee or this court has sold the said gala7property. It is only when the official assignee took possession of the said gala that the maneks' came forward alleging that the said gala is sold to them by the insolvent. The insolvent has thus deprived his creditors qua the actual sale proceeds of the said gala and has misappropriated the funds which should lie with the official assignee. 12. The advocate for the petitioning creditor has further pointed out that the insolvent has not stopped after the dishonest sale of the said gala, but has also proceeded to sell his residential flat at cuffe parade and has admittedly collected rs.2.51 crores without informing the official assignee. On 7th january 2004. The insolvent in his private examination, informed the official assignee that he is residing at flat no.151/b, maker towers, 85, cuffe parade, mumbai-400 005. He further stated that the flat stands in the name of hakimchandra vora (huf) i.e. His grandfather. He informed the official assignee that he would give the official assignee details of his exact share in the said huf flat. He further stated that the flat stands in the name of hakimchandra vora (huf) i.e. His grandfather. He informed the official assignee that he would give the official assignee details of his exact share in the said huf flat. However, the insolvent avoided handing over the share certificate of the said huf flat which was produced only on 11th october 2010 which stands in the name of hakimchand b. Vora, rajesh vora (the insolvent) and shalini vora (a cousin of the insolvent). It subsequently came to light that the insolvent and his father by an mou dated 23rd november 2006 agreed to sell the said huf flat admeasuring 3000 sq.ft. To spire builders private limited for a consideration of rs. 19,50,00,000/- and upon execution of the said agreement, had received a sum of rs.2,51,00,000/- from the said spire builders. In the said mou, the father of the insovlent mr. Dhirubhai hakmichand vora (now deceased) is shown as the karta of the hakimchand b. Vora hue it is now admitted that dhirubhai h. Vora was never the karta of the hakimchand b. Vora huf. The said amount of rs. 2,51,00,000/- was deposited in a new bank account opened in karur vysya bank in the names of the insolvent and his parents, who were both adjudged insolvents as well. The learned advocate for the insolvent had assured this court that at least rs.30,00,000/- will be deposited in court. However, the insolvent did not deposit a single naya paisa in this court. 13. In the mean time, this court by its order dated 20th december 2011 also directed the official assignee to take forcible possession of the share of the insolvent in the said flat at maker towers. Pursuant to this order, manaharlal vora and shalin vora have moved a notice of motion before this court claiming that shri manharlal vora is the karta of the hakimchand b. Vora huf and shalin vora, a coparcener and that pending the hearing of the notice of motion the order of forcible possession of the said flat be stayed. The said notice of motion shall be heard on its own merits. 14. The learned advocate for the creditor has pointed out that admittedly the insolvent has a substantial share in the said flat. The said notice of motion shall be heard on its own merits. 14. The learned advocate for the creditor has pointed out that admittedly the insolvent has a substantial share in the said flat. However, by mou dated 23rd november 2006, he, along with his father, agreed to sell the entire said flat without informing the official assignee or this court for a consideration of rs. 19,50,00,000/- and has also collected part payment of rs.2,50,00,000/- from the said spire builders. 15. The learned advocate appearing for the insolvent has submitted that though it is true that the insolvent, without informing the official assignee and without seeking leave of this court, has disposed of the said gala and by an mou dated 23rd november 2006 also created third party rights in respect of the said flat in favour of spire builders private limited and has received part sale consideration of rs.2,50,00,000/-, this court whilst sentencing him to imprisonment should bear in mind the fact that that he has deposited an amount of rs.5,50,000/- with the official assignee being part sale consideration of the said gala and has himself not withdrawn the amount of rs.2,50,00,000/- deposited with karur vysya bank being part sale consideration of the said flat. It is submitted that this court should further consider that the insolvent has already been behind bars for a period of six months in a case of cheating filed by the directors of spire builders against him. 16. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioning creditor as well as the insolvent. Section 34 of the presidency towns insolvency act, 1909 reads as under: 34. 16. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioning creditor as well as the insolvent. Section 34 of the presidency towns insolvency act, 1909 reads as under: 34. Arrest of insolvent.- (1) the court may, either of its own motion or at the instance of the official assignee or of any creditor, by warrant addressed to any police-officer or prescribed officer of the court, cause an insolvent to be arrested, and committed to the civil prison or if in prison to be detained until such time as the court may order, under the following circumstances, namely:- (a) if it appears to the court that there is probable reason for believing that he has absconded or is about to abscond with a view of avoiding examination in respect of his affairs, or of otherwise avoiding, delaying or embarrassing proceedings in insolvency against him; or (b) if it appears to the court that there is probable reason for believing that he is about to remove his property with a view of preventing or delaying possession being taken of it by the official assignee, or that there is probable reason for believing that he has concealed or is about to conceal or destroy any of his property or any books, documents or writings which might be of use to his creditors in the course of his insolvency; or (c) if he removes any property in his possession above the value of fifty rupees without the leave of the official assignee. (2) no payment or composition made or security given after arrest made under this section shall be exempt from the provisions of this act relating to fraudulent preferences. 17. From the aforesaid facts, it is abundantly clear that the insolvent has no regards for the law of the land, courts and orders passed by courts. He is out to cheat any one for money. However, in this notice of motion, this court is concerned with his dishonest acts of removing valuable properties from his possession without the leave of the official assignee or of the court. The insolvent has, as per the agreement for sale dated 7th september 2007, disposed of the said gala for an amount of rs. 11,50,000/-, whilst as per the mou produced by the maneks' and the cheque issued by the insolvent, the said gala is shown as disposed of for an amount of rs.22,50,00,000/-. The insolvent has, as per the agreement for sale dated 7th september 2007, disposed of the said gala for an amount of rs. 11,50,000/-, whilst as per the mou produced by the maneks' and the cheque issued by the insolvent, the said gala is shown as disposed of for an amount of rs.22,50,00,000/-. The insolvent along with his father has also, by an mou dated 23rd november 2006, disposed of the said flat, in which he admittedly has a substantial right, to spire builders private limited for a sum of rs. 19,50,00,000/- out of which he and his father collected a sum of rs.2,50,00,000/-from the said spire builders and failed to disclose the same to the official assignee or to this court. Thus, the insolvent has concealed from the official assignee the amount of rs.2,50,00,000/- received along with his father from spire builders. Whether the insolvent brings back the said amount or not, is, in my view, not relevant. The fact remains that the insolvent removed his properties being the said gala and the said flat (or his share therein) with a view to prevent the official assignee from j taking possession of the same. Moreover, the i insolvent has also concealed from the official assignee the amount of rs.2,50,00,000/- received by him and his father from spirej builders. Therefore, the above acts of the insolvent clearly make him liable for arrest' within the ambit of section 34(b) & (c) of the presidency towns insolvency act, 1909. 18. I would like to observe that an unhealthy trend seems to have set in amongst a section of litigants, who often brazenly and with impunity flout pro visions of law and/or orders passed by courts. At such times the court cannot be a mute spectator, but needs to step in and be proactive in stopping this unhealthy trend, which would otherwise corrode the faith of the common man in the judiciary as a means of redressing his grievances. In the case at hand, the advocate appearing for the insolvent wants this court to show leniency while imposing the sentence of imprisonment, by appealing to the court to keep in mind that the entire amount of rs.2,50,00,000/- has been used by the parents of the insolvent and not by him, and that he has deposited an amount of rs. 5,50,000/- with the official assignee. 5,50,000/- with the official assignee. In my view, such circumstances do not warrant any leniency in sentencing. Just because the insolvent has deposited an amount of rs.5,50,000/- with the official assignee, does not mean that this court has to forgive and conveniently forget the bold attempts and steps taken by the insolvent hot just to defeat the lawful claim of the creditors, but also to brazenly flout provisions of the law. A lenient sentence in this case would mean and send a message that the court is itself not outraged by the flagrant disregard shown by the insolvent and is adopting a "forgive and forget" policy, merely because the insolvent has deposited an amount of rs.5,50,000/- with the official assignee. In doing so, the court would do grave injustice to creditors who, for no fault of their own, have been put through a long and protracted round of litigation spanning over more than a decade to recover their legitimate dues. It would further indicate that litigants can flout provisions of the law with impunity and still be shown mercy and forgiveness by courts. Such a trend, in my opinion, would destroy the very principle of deterrence, which punishments are intended to serve. 19. In view thereof, i pass the following order: i) i sentence the insolvent to six months simple imprisonment in civil prison. Ii) office to issue a warrant of arrest against the insolvent which shall be executed forthwith by the office of the sheriff of bombay. Iii) the petitioning creditor shall deposit rs.5000/- towards diet charges. Iii) the notice of motion is accordingly disposed of. 20. The learned advocate appearing for the insolvent seeks stay on the order. In view of what is stated hereinabove, the question of stay on the order does not arise. The application is rejected. Ordered accordingly.