abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COURT RECEIVER’S REPORT NO. 206 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO. 2538 OF 1997 Bank of Baroda .. Plaintiff V/s M/s Blossom Industries Ltd. & Ors. .. Defendants Mr.Farhan Dubash with Mr.S.A.K. Najam-es-Sani i/b Maneksha & Sethna for Defendant No.1. Mr.D.V. Deokar, 1st Assistant to Court Receiver, present in Court. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 25TH JULY 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. : 1. The only thing that remains in the suit is the costs, charges and expenses of the Court Receiver. There is no dispute that it is Defendant No.1 who is liable to pay the same. 2. The only question is whether the properties - 2 - under consideration are movable properties or immovable properties. This is necessary for the purpose of ascertaining the basis on which the Court Receiver computes the costs, charges and expenses. 3. There is no dispute that the properties mentioned in Exhibits F, K and G to the Plaint are movable properties. This was conceded by Defendant No.1 even in the earlier proceedings involving the Court Receiver. The dispute is as regards Exhibits M and N to the Plaint. By an order dated 16th February 2004, the learned Judge observed that it would be appropriate that the Court Receiver submits a fresh Report giving break-up and description of the properties referred to in Exhibits M and N to the Plaint in order to ascertain as to which of the properties are movable properties and which are immovable properties. 4. There is however an earlier valuation report that that describes the properties. There are also photographs. It is for the Court to decide the question whether the properties are movable or immovable. The earlier valuation report proceeded on the erroneous basis that the plant and machinery, which was embedded and permanently affixed to the earth, constituted movable properties. In fact, they did not. They were - 3 - embedded to the earth / factory plot and they therefore constituted immovable properties and the Court Receiver ought therefore to calculate the charges on that basis. 5. The photographs on record furnished with the earlier valuation report clearly indicate that most of the equipments are affixed to the earth or permanently affixed to the structure which are embedded in the earth. 6. The nature of the process described in the valuation report dated 27th February 1998 indicates that the machinery is extremely substantial and could have been worked only by affixing it permanently to the earth. The earlier valuation report, which valued the plant and machinery at Rs.18 crores, proceeds on the erroneous basis that they are movable properties. 7. The raw material was value at around Rs.4 lacs as is evident from page 8 of the valuation report. However, Mr.Dubash fairly points out that according to Defendant No.1 itself, the valuation of the suit properties is Rs.5,50,000/-. Thus, the sum of Rs.5,50,000/- shall be the value of the movable suit properties for assessing the charges of the Court Receiver. - 4 - 8. In the circumstances, the Court Receiver’s Report is disposed of as follows:- (a) The value of the movable suit properties, of which the Court Receiver was appointed, is Rs.5,50,000/-. (b) A sum of Rs.50,000/- has already been deposited by Defendant No.1 with the Court Receiver. The same will be given credit for by the Court Receiver to Defendant No.1. (c) The balance value shall be attributed to the immovable properties. . The Court Receiver shall proceed to compute his costs, charges and expenses accordingly.