SANJIB BANERJEE, J.

There is a common thread that runs through the clutch of insolvency petitions. Indeed, the common thread travels beyond these petitions and envelopes other debtors’ petitions claiming insolvency filed in the last three years.

What started apparently innocuously has blown the cover off a colossal saga of procured orders, intrigue and possible conspiracy. Orders of adjudication in insolvency matters were apparently up for sale, complete with posters on walls and lampposts, advertisements in newspapers and soliciting on the internet. A century-old practice of this Court has been turned on its head and the process abused whereby orders of adjudication on debtors’ claims of insolvency have appeared as items of merchandise.

The several debtors’ petitions claiming insolvency carry IC numbers. The applications made in the insolvency proceedings carry GA numbers, every GA application being pegged to an insolvency petition. In the first matter, involving the son and mother duo of Krishnendu and Rekha Sircar, five sets of creditors have applied for investigation into the circumstances relating to the order of adjudication and the conduct of the proceedings. The creditors have also sought annulment of the order of adjudication. The apparently innocent application that triggered off the avalanche of protest by creditors and brought to light what had been passed off as a judicial process was a plea by the petitioning-debtors in IC No. 145 of 2008 seeking a stay of the criminal proceedings launched against them by their creditors. On such debtors’ original application, GA No. 2079 of 2009, a limited stay of the criminal proceedings was granted on August 14, 2009. GA No. 20 of 2010 was brought by the mother and son duo for a continuation of the blanket immunity against criminal proceedings. This opened the floodgates as private banks and finance companies came pouring in complaining of a vicious clique, involving some lawyers and officials, that peddled in adjudication orders to debtors unwilling to repay their creditors. GA No. 2079 of 2009 has since been withdrawn by the petitioning-debtors consequent whereupon GA No. 20 of 2010 has no further legs to stand on. But the lid has come off one of the biggest conspiracies carried out in these hallowed precincts. GA No. 104 of 2010 is an application by HDFC Bank under Section 87 of the Presidency-Towns Insolvency Act, 1909 with a prayer for annulment of the order of adjudication of the debtors as insolvents. GA No. 130 of 2010 is an application of similar import by ABN Amro Bank NV. ICICI Bank has carried GA No. 134 of 2010, Standard Chartered Bank has brought GA No. 135 of 2010 and India Bulls Financial Services Limited has filed GA No. 481 of 2010 for similar purpose.

Cholamandalam DBS Finance Limited has applied for recalling the order of adjudication on another debtor’s petition for insolvency by way of GA No. 482 of 2010. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited has applied in the third insolvency matter for enforcement of the strict rules that would ensure payment of the dues of the creditors if the insolvent is able to afford the same. Kotak’s application is numbered as GA No. 290 of 2010. ICICI Bank has brought GA No. 409 of 2010, GA No. 410 of 2010, GA No. 432 of 2010, GA No. 433 of 2010, GA No. 434 of 2010, GA No. 435 of 2010 and GA No. 436 of 2010 for annulment of the orders of adjudication in seven insolvency cases and for an investigation into the conduct of the proceedings. Citi Bank NA has applied by way of GA No. 442 of 2010 in one insolvency case. Reliance Consumer Finance, a division of Reliance Capital Limited, has instituted GA No. 548 of 2010, GA No. 991 of 2010 and GA No. 990 of 2010 in three sets of insolvency proceedings. Since the matter was considered to be serious and it appeared that some advocates may have been involved and there may have also been an element of criminality involved, notices were issued to the Bar Council of West Bengal and to the S