1. Insolvency Petition No.92 of 2006 is presented by Kamlesh Mulchand Hemrajani for an order of adjudication against the debtors i.e Manghandas Paramanand, a partnership Firm having its office at the address mentioned more particularly in the cause title, one Jairam Manghandas Jashnani and one Tulsi P.Jashnani.

2. It is alleged that the petitioning creditor is a Karta and Manager of Kamlesh Mulchand Hemrajani (HUF). Debtor No.1 is a partnership firm and debtor Nos.2 and 3 are partners of the said firm.

3. On 16th February, 2005 debtor Tulsi Jashnani as a Karta and Manager of Tulsi P. Jashnani (HUF) drew an on-demand bill of exchange in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- in favour of the petitioning creditor. The said bill of exchange was accepted by the debtors as acceptors. It is stated that debtor Tulsi Jashnani has paid to the petitioning creditor discount commission at the rate of 12% p.a. till 14th February, 2006. On 15th February, 2006 and thereafter several attempts were made by the petitioning creditor to present bill of exchange for payment to the debtors but their office was found locked. No responsible person was found in the said office. The petitioner also made attempt to present bill of exchange to Jairam Jashnani but they were not available at their business or residential address. Thus, debtors have failed and neglected to pay the petitioning creditor the sum of Rs.01,50,000/-. Thereafter, an advocate’s letter was addressed to the debtors which was duly received but neither the same has been replied nor amount claimed therein paid.

4. The debtors Tulsi Jashnani and Jairam Jashnani are Directors of one Jashnani Leasing and Finance Ltd. The said company allegedly duped the creditors and Investors of an amount exceeding Rupees Four crores. Therefore, Tulsi Jashnani and Jairam Jashnani so also another Director Haresh Jashnani had been proceeded against in criminal Courts by the Economic Offence Wing of the Crime Branch of Bombay Police. There were several complaints and to avoid their arrest, Tulsi Jashnani and Haresh Jashnani absconded. They left India for a long period. However, after considerable pressure was mounted on them they surrendered by coming back to India. Debtor Jairam was also arrested but presently enlarged on bail. The petitioner therefore submits that debtors are heavily indebted to many persons/creditors. They are unable to pay and discharge their liabilities. To avoid payment of liability the debtors have avoided to meet their creditors. They have kept themselves away from them. Thus, with an intent to defeat or delay the claims of all creditors they have remained out of State and/or India for nearly 8 months. They have departed from their respective dwelling house or usual place of business and thus, they have committed acts of insolvency and are liable to be adjudged as insolvent.

5. Insolvency Petition No.109 of 2006 is presented by one Gopal K. Chawla against Haresh and Tulsi Jashnani. The case of Gopal Chawla is that on 17th October, 2005 a similar bill of exchange was drawn in his favour by the firm of which one of the debtor is partner. This is an on-demand bill of exchange in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/-. This was for valuable consideration and in lieu of the firm receiving a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- by cheque. The bill of exchange was presented on 18th January 2006 but came to be dishonoured by non-payment. A demand was raised but there was no response. Ultimately, an advocate’s letter dated 11th February 2006 was addressed and subsequently a summary suit being Summary Suit No.831 of 2006 came to be filed in this Court. The Writ of Summons was duly served. Some of the defendants filed their appearance. Debtors did not appear. A summons for judgment was taken out in the said suit. The petitioning creditor is dealing separately with the contents of the affidavit in reply filed to the said summons for judgment. However, there is sum of Rs.11,52,383.56 paise due and payable.

6. More or les