1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COURT RECEIVER'S REPORT NO. 410 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.1603 OF 1985 Rajesh Kantilal Shah & Ors. ...Plaintiffs Vs. Kishore K. Badiani & Ors. ...Defendants Mr.Soni i/b. Singvi & Co. for Plaintiffs Mr. Sandeep Parikh i/b. Sonal Doshi & Co., a/w. A.S. Doctor for Defendant No.1 Mr. Vivek Kantawala a/w. Mr. S.Shamim i/b. Shamim & Co for Defendant No.2 (b-d) Mr.K.K.Jadhav Advocate for Agent Smt.U.S . Srivastava, 2nd Asstt., to Court Receiver CORAM: SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED: 10 TH DECEMBER, 2008 P.C. 1. One Farukh Solani is appointed Agent of Court Receiver. He has entered into Agency Agreement. His Agency Agreement is to run a hotel/restaurant. The suit premises has some structures and open space. He was present at the time of the auction. He bid at the auction. He applied for and was allowed to run a restaurant / hotel. 2. He contended earlier on a number of occasions that the 2 premises are in a state of complete dis- repair. He relied upon the earlier Court Receiver's Report dated 23 rd September 2008, which shows various urgent repairs required. 3. On the last occasion I was informed that the Agent has not only carried out tenantable repairs but has also carried out some reconstruction work. I was shown photographs showing how the height of the structure has been increased and the structure has been decorated from outside. 4. I called upon the Plaintiff as well as the Receiver's Agent to produce current photographs to show me the position as of today. The Agent has not produced any photographs as of today. The Plaintiff has produced further photographs showing extensive repairs / construction/ renovation being carried out in a number of rooms. The photographs inter alia show bricks being put to make up a wall by the side of the room. The Plaintiff has also produced the photographs of March, 2008. These photographs show the position six months prior to the Court Receiver's Report. These photographs themselves show extensive repairs/renovations and reconstruction work carried out without obtaining permission of the Court Receiver. 5. The position that was described by the Court Receiver in 3 the report dated 23 rd September 2008 does not prevail today. The application for carrying out tenantable repairs based upon that report has therefore, itself become infructuous. The Court cannot pass any orders for carrying out tenantable repairs after seeing that complete renovation and reconstruction has been carried out without permission of the Court and after the Court Receiver's Report. Prayer (b) is refused. 6. The Court Receiver's Report is disposed off. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)