1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.273 OF 2007 IN COURT RECEIVER'S REPORT DT. 05.01.2006 IN SUIT NO.162 OF 2002 1.Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. and another. ...Appellants Vs. 1.Canara Bank(Debenture Trustees) and others. ...Respondents. AND APPEAL NO.277 OF 2007 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1453 OF 2006 IN COURT RECEIVER'S REPORT DT. 05.01.2006 IN SUIT NO.162 OF 2002 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1590 OF 2007 AND NOTICE OF MOTION NO.54 OF 2008 AND NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2930 OF 2008 1.Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. and another. ...Appellants Vs. 2 1.Canara Bank(Debenture Trustees) and others. ...Respondents. AND APPEAL NO.275 OF 2007 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.53 OF 2006 IN SUIT NO.3975 OF 2002 1.Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. and another. ...Appellants Vs. 1.Apple Credit Corporation Ltd. and others. ...Respondents. AND APPEAL NO.278 OF 2007 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.671 OF 2006 IN SUIT NO.162 OF 2002 1.Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. and another. ...Appellants Vs. 1.Canara Bank and others. ...Respondents. --- Dr.V.V.Tulzapurkar & Mr.B.B.Saraf @ Mr.V.Trivedi, Mr.Sunil Tilokchandani, Mr.Sachin Chandrana & 3 Mr.D.Khanapurkar i/b. M.K.Ambalal & Co., for Appellants-Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. Ms.Khyati Ghevaria i/b. Umesh Shetty & Co., for Respondent no.1-Canara Bank. Mr.Virag Tulzapurkar i/b. M/s.Kanga & Co., for Respondent no.2-Apple Finance Ltd. Mr.Vasant Kotwal @ Mr.P.Rajgour i/b. PDS Legal, for Dena Bank-Respondent no.5 in APP 277/07. AND APPEAL NO.503 OF 2007 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1453 OF 2006 IN SUIT NO.162 OF 2002 AND APPEAL NO.451 OF 2007 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.510 OF 2006 IN SUIT NO.162 OF 2002 Apple Finance Ltd. ...Appellant Vs. 1.Canara Bank and others. ...Respondents. --- Mr.Virag Tulzapurkar i/b. M/s.Kanga & Co., for Appellant. Ms.Khyati Ghevaria i/b. Umesh Shetty & Co., for Respondent no.1-Canara Bank. Dr.V.V.Tulzapurkar & Mr.B.B.Saraf @ Mr.V.Trivedi, 4 Mr.Sunil Tilokchandani, Mr.Sachin Chandrana & Mr.D.Khanapurkar i/b. M.K.Ambalal & Co., for Respondent nos.2 and 3. Mr.Vasant Kotwal @ Mr.P.Rajgour i/b. PDS Legal, for Dena Bank-Respondent no.6 in APP 503/07. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATED: 17th January, 2009. P.C.:- 1. In this appeal common order passed in several chamber summonses and notices of motion in different suits by the learned Single Judge of this Court is challenged. It is common ground that the main proceeding was the Report submitted by the Receiver for sale of the property of Apple Finance Ltd. to Jet Airways. However, while directing the Receiver not to accept the offer made by Jet Airways, the learned Single Judge has given directions against the present appellants-Kotak, which admittedly were not sought by any of the parties. In our opinion, therefore, the only order that can remain in force is the order by which the learned Single Judge has 5 directed that the offer made by Jet Airways should not be accepted. The order has been made by the learned Single Judge in several proceedings. 2. The first proceeding is Chamber summons no.183 of 2007. That chamber summons was taken out by one of the offerers opposing the acceptance of offer of Jet Airways. Similar is the case of the second proceeding viz. Notice of motion no.407 of 2007. As we are not interfering with the order made by the learned Single Judge declining to accept the highest bid of Jet Airways, no orders are necessary in chamber summons no.183 of 2007 and Notice of motion no.407 of 2007. 3. So far as the notice of motion no.671 of 2006 is concerned, it was taken out by Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. & others, for an order that the property of Appeal Finance Ltd. in relation to which the Receiver has been appointed need not be sold now. We do not find any direction made in that regard. In our opinion, therefore, that notice of motion will have to be remitted back to the learned Single Judge to be 6 heard again afresh. It is accordingly so ordered. 4. So far as chamber summons no.98 of 2008 is concerned, this chamber summons was taken out by the appellant-Kotak. The learned Counsel appearing for Kotak states that this chamber summons does not survive for consideration. The statement is accepted. Chamber summons is disposed of. 5. Next proceeding is writ petition (lodging) no.328 of 2006. The learned Counsel appearing for appellant states that this writ petition has already been disposed of by the Division Bench. Therefore, there is no question of learned Single Judge making any order in that writ petition. 6. So far as chamber summons no.238 of 2006 is concerned, it is common ground before us that it does not survive for consideration. Hence, it is disposed of. 7. So far as Notice of Motion no.1453 of 2006 is concerned, it has been taken out by Dena Bank for 7 direction that the process of sale of the property of Apple Finance should be continued and out of the sale proceeds, the amount, which according to Dena bank is payable to it, should be secured. The order for appointment of Receiver is not being disturbed by us. We have also not set aside the order for sale of the property. Though the appellants-Kotak has taken out a notice of motion for direction that the property should not be sold, that notice of motion we have remitted back by this order. In this view of the matter, therefore, in our opinion, this notice of motion cannot be entertained in this proceedings. Dena Bank shall be at liberty to take out notice of motion for similar reliefs in appropriate proceedings. 8. The next proceeding is chamber summons no.510 of 2006. The learned Counsel appearing for Kotak states that the matter has been settled with the applicant who has taken out the chamber summon, therefore, this chamber summons does not survive for consideration. The statement is accepted. The chamber 8 summons is disposed of. 9. So far as notice of motion no.1212 of 2006 is concerned, this notice of motion is taken out in suit no.1075 of 2006 and that suit has already been withdrawn. Therefore, this notice of motion does not survive for consideration, and hence,disposed of as such. 10. So far as notice of motion no.271 of 2006 in suit no.162 of 2002 is concerned, as the party who had taken out this notice of motion has withdrawn its own suit, and therefore, this notice of motion does not survive for consideration and disposed of as such. 11. So far as notice of motion no.218 of 2006 is concerned, the learned Counsel appearing for Kotak states that the matter is already settled with the applicants in this chamber summons and therefore, this chamber summons does not survive for consideration and disposed of as such. 9 12. So far as notice of motion no.459 of 2006 is concerned, it is based on the acceptance of offer of Jet Airways. As we have confirmed that order, the notice of motion stands disposed of. 13. So far as notice of motion no.2216 of 2005 is concerned, the learned Counsel appearing for Kotak states that the matter is settled with the applicant in this notice of motion and therefore, it does not survive for consideration and disposed of as such. 14. So far as Chamber summons no.53 of 2006 is concerned, the learned Counsel appearing for Kotak states that his client has arrived at a settlement with the Apple Credit Corporation Ltd. who had taken out this chamber summons. Therefore, it does not survive for consideration and disposed of as such. 15. In view of this order appeal nos.273/07, 275/07, 277/07, 278/07, 503/07 and 451/07 are also disposed of. So also Notices of motion nos.1590/07, 54/08 and 2930/08 taken out in Appeal no.277/07 are also disposed of. 10 (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (A.A.SAYED,J.) ---