1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. O.O.C.J. O.O.C.J. CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1409 OF 2008 CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1409 OF 2008 CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1409 OF 2008 IN IN IN SUIT NO.1603 OF 1985 SUIT NO.1603 OF 1985 SUIT NO.1603 OF 1985 Rajesh Kantilal Shah & Anr. .. Plaintiffs V/s. Kishore Kalyanji Badiani & Ors. .. Defendants And The Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay & Ors. .. Respondents Ms.Meelan Thorat i/b. Jayesh Desai & Associates for the Plaintiffs. Ms.Alpane Ghere i/b. Sonal Joshi & Co. for Defendant No.1. Mr.Shamim i/b.Shamim & Co. for Defendant Nos.3b to 2d. Mr.K.K.Jadhav for Respondent No.2 (Court Receiver Agent). CORAM : ROSHAN S.DALVI, J. CORAM : ROSHAN S.DALVI, J. CORAM : ROSHAN S.DALVI, J. DATED : 11TH NOVEMBER, 2008. DATED : 11TH NOVEMBER, 2008. DATED : 11TH NOVEMBER, 2008. P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- . There has been protracted litigation by way of various applications between the parties in this suit who are the partners conducting hotel business. Several orders have been passed on applications of either of the parties with regard to the working of the Court Receiver who has been appointed receiver in respect of the suit premises. This Chamber Summons 2 relates to directions to the Court Receiver in respect of collapsed wall, dirty drainage water and filing of Income Tax Returns. 2. Regarding collapsed wall :- an order has been passed by Justice Kamdar on 22nd February, 2006 with regard to this aspect. The owner of the adjacent property one Prashant Sharma had undertaken to complete the construction of the collapsed wall before Justice Kamdar. The construction was to be completed within three months of the passing of the order. That order was to be complied with on or before 22nd May, 2006. This was to be done under the supervision of the Architect S.S.Nadkarni and Company who issued a certificate for the construction. Upon such certificate being issued, the adjacent owner was to be entitled to costs of construction to the extent of Rs.5 lakhs. He was to bear balance costs of construction. 3. Two and half years have passed since then. It is contended on behalf of the Plaintiff that the compound wall was constructed before March, 2007. That aspect has been noted in this Court’s order dated 9th March, 2007. 3 4. The agent of the Court Receiver i.e. Respondent No. 2, now desires to construct the compound wall on the same terms. The Plaintiff contends that the agent is really a dummy for Defendant No.1. It is also contended, and that has been case found in earlier application, that instead of running the Restaurant, in fact a Brothel is run in the suit premises. Accordingly, it is contended that on the ground of constructing a compound wall, the agent who is in collusion with Defendant No.1, seeks to appropriate about Rs. 5 lakhs to himself. 5. Defendant No.1 who took out this Chamber Summons did not mention about the order dated 9th March, 2007 noting that the compound wall was reconstructed. The Plaintiff brought it to the notice of this court. 6. In view of this, no orders with regard to construction of any wall upon payment of costs need to be passed pending the suit. Respondent No.2 may, at his own costs, charges and expenses and under the supervision of the Court Receiver construct any compound wall to protect the property which he has chosen to be an Agent for. Prayer ‘a’ is disposed of 4 accordingly. 7. Regarding dirty drainage water:- Defendant No.1 filed suit No.3865 of 1985 in the Bombay City Civil Court. That suit has been dismissed for default in 2002. That suit related to the drainage water flowing into the suit property from the adjacent property. Court Receiver has been substituted as the Plaintiff in that suit. The Plaintiff has opposed this relief also. However, the property deserves to be managed and protected. Defendant No.1 shall at his costs, charges and expenses take out any application as required with permission of the Court Receiver in that suit with regard to the drainage water. 8. Regarding Income Tax Returns:- M/s.Dhagat and Company, Chartered Accountant has been appointed by the Court Receiver. Defendant No.1 is anxious to pay the relevant income tax from the income of the suit property. Defendant No.1 shall be entitled to make enquiry from the Chartered Accounts already appointed by the Court Receiver in respect of the Income Tax Returns and shall be entitled to obtain copies thereof and file returns. 5 9. The Chamber Summons is disposed of accordingly. (ROSHAN S.DALVI, J.) (ROSHAN S.DALVI, J.) (ROSHAN S.DALVI, J.)