- (1.) The learned Advocate on record of the creditor/petitioner, (SICOM in short) took out a Notice of Motion dated 8 July 2003 seeking the following orders against the debtors, Bajranglal Jain and Suresh Jain (debtors in short) of 9 Pretoria Street, Calcutta :- (a) That an order be passed declaring the said judgment-debtors as insolvents; (b) That an order of adjudication be passed vesting all the property of the respondents in the Official Assignee for payment of debts owed to the petitioner; (c) Costs; (d) Further order or orders and/or direction or directions be given as to this Hon'ble Court may seem fit and proper.
(2.) Needless to mention, the said Notice of Motion was supported by an affidavit affirmed on 24 June 2003 by one V. C. Deo, Deputy Manager (Legal) of SICOM. According to SICOM both the said Notice of Motion and the said supporting affidavit were served upon the debtors.
(3.) However, when the above was first moved in Court on 8 July 2003, Justice Narayan Chandra Sil (as his Lordship then was) made the following order :- "The learned Advocate for the petitioner is present. He has filed a Notice of Motion before this Court and prays that he may be given a further opportunity to cause service of notice upon the respondents/debtors. The prayer is, thus, allowed. The learned Advocate for the petitioner is directed to serve a notice afresh upon the respondents and file affidavit of service on 21 July 2003. The learned Advocate for the petitioner further prays that there is some typographical mistake in the cause title of the petition and he may be permitted to correct the same. The prayer is also allowed. The learned Advocate for the petitioner is permitted to make the necessary correction here and now. Let this matter appear in the list on 22 July 2003. All parties are to act on a signed copy of the minutes of this order on the usual undertaking.";