: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION JUDGE’S ORDER NO.247 OF 2008 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO.259 OF 2003 Dr.(Mrs.) Kalpana D. Velaskar ....Petitioner V/s. Dr.Francis P. Candes ....Respondent And M/s.Ratanshi Shamji Oil Traders ....Applicant None for the Petitioner. Mr.H.S.S. Murthy for the Respondent. Mr.Jagannath Narayanan i/b Narayanan & Narayanan for the Applicant. Mr.D.V. Deokar, 1st Assistant to the Court Receiver present. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 26TH AUGUST, 2008. P.C. : 1. The Applicant seeks an order in terms of the draft Judge’s order. This application is disposed of by this order. 2. There is no doubt that the Applicant is entitled to possession of the premises in view of the order of this Court dated 12.7.2007 and the order of the Division Bench dated 30.10.2007. In fact possession ought to have been handed over on 30.6.2008. Unfortunately, possession has still not : 2 : been handed over and the Applicant is constrained to make this application. 3. The excuse for not handing over possession is totally unfounded. It is based on the inter-se disputes between the Petitioner and the Respondent with which the Applicant is in no way concerned. Admittedly there are articles belonging to the Petitioner and/or the Respondent and/or the firm lying in the premises. The Applicant does not even claim any right in respect thereof. Safeguarding the suit property is not the Applicant’s responsibility. This however, cannot be a ground for delaying handing over possession of the premises in accordance with the above orders. 4. By an order dated 19.3.2008, directions were issued disposing of the said articles. I am informed that the bids have been made only by the Respondent. The Petitioner, I am informed declined to make any offer. The Court Receiver ought to have filed a report in this regard. He is in any event now directed to do so within one week from today. 5. Although, as I have observed above, the Applicant is not concerned with the articles which belong to the firm I intend only as a matter of : 3 : indulgence granting the firm some time to remove the articles. That however, will not justify the delay in handing over possession to the Applicant. 6. The licence fees was fixed at Rs.65,000/- per month. Indeed these fees cannot apply to the subsequent period. The Applicant would be entitled to adopt appropriate proceedings for any enhancement in respect thereof. However, for this period of two months during which the Applicant has been deprived of the possession of the property unjustly as on ad-hoc arrangement and purely on account an amount equal to the existing licence fees ought to be paid to the Applicant forthwith. 7. In the circumstances, the Judge’s Order is disposed of by following order :- i). The Court Receiver shall hand over the possession of the premises to the Applicant by 4.30 p.m. today. ii). As directed Mr.Murthy hands over in Court the keys to the premises to the Court Receiver. He states that no duplicates thereof have been retained by his clients. : 4 : iii). The Applicant shall be entitled to quiet, vacant and peaceful possession of the premises henceforth. However, only as a matter of indulgence, the Applicant is directed to retain the material lying in the premises in any portion of the premises of the choice of the Applicant. The Applicant shall not be responsible for the safety or maintenance thereof in any manner. On and after 8.9.2008, if the articles have not been removed from the premises, the Applicant shall be entitled to remove the same in any manner the Applicant desires. The Applicant shall not be responsible for the same for any purpose or on any ground whatsoever. iv). The Court Receiver shall make a report pursuant to the order dated 19.3.2008 on or before 1.9.2008. v). The Court Receiver shall from out of the funds lying with him, pay over a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- to the Applicant forthwith. vi). Liberty to the Applicant to adopt : 5 : appropriate proceedings for any further amounts that may be due. Liberty to the parties to the Petition to adopt proceedings for recovery of the security amount. vii). Needless to add that this order will be without prejudice to the rights and contentions between the Petitioner and the Respondent inter-se including regarding which party is responsible for the delay in handing over possession of the premises to the Applicant.