NATARAJAN, J .:- Respondents 1 to 5 in I.P. No.72 of 1976, have preferred this appeal to canvass the correctness of the order of adjudication passed against them in the said insolvency petition.

2. The first appellant is a registered partnership firm and appellants 2 to 5 are its partners. Respondents 1 to 3 herein filed a petition under S.9(d)(ii) and 9(g) read with Ss.10, 11 and 13 of the Presidency Towns Insolvency Act (III of 1909) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for adjudicating the appellants and one Job Simon (the 6th respondent in the insolvency petition) as insolvents and for directing the estate of the insolvents to vest in the Official Assignee for purposes of administration for the benefit of the general body of creditors. As regards the act of insolvency under S.9(d)(ii), it was alleged in the petition that the appellants and the said Job Simon had made themselves unavailable for being contacted at the office or at the works. This contention was not accepted by the learned single Judge who disposed of the insolvency petition and hence we need not deal with that aspect of the matter in this judgement. As regards the other ground on which an order of adjudic