1 court receiver .33.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COURT RECEIVER’S REPORT NO.33 OF 2011 IN SUIT NO.3313 OF 2005 ata Bhavesh Harish Gandhi and anr .. Plaintiffs V/s. Prithvi Vallabh Bhalchandra Rawat and ors .. Defendants Mr.Naseem Patrawalla,Adv for the Plaintiff Mr.P.N.Patwardhan i/b Kantilal Kanojia,for the Defendant nos 1 and 2 Mr.Niranjan Lapasia,Adv for defendant no.4 Mr.Tushar Goradia, for defendant no.7 Mr.G.G.Ketkar, 1st Asstt. to Court Receiver CORAM :S.J.KATHAWALLA,J. DATE : 1ST APRIL,2011 P.C.:- Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties. The Court Receiver shall take possession of the Suit Flat No. 801 and invite proposals from the parties, who are willing to occupy the Suit Flat No.801, as agent of the Court 2 court receiver .33.11.sxw Receiver on the usual terms and conditions fixed by the Court Receiver. The Court Receiver shall call a meeting of the parties on 7th April,2011 at 5.00 p.m to fix the proposals. The Defendant no.7 shall remove the articles from the Suit Flat as and when the Court Receiver requires her to do so. 2. As regards payment of the professional fees of Rs. 1,02,907/-, to the valuer, M/s.Shah Enterprises( Defendant no. 4) have contended that they are not liable to make the said payment. It is submitted on behalf of Defendant no.4 that he is not concerned with Flat No.801, and subject matter of his Suit does not pertain to Flat No.801. The question therefore of Defendant no.4 making payment of the fees of the valuer who has submitted the valuation of Flat No.801 does not arise. It is only submitted that only because the Court has passed a common order in two Suits and three Notices of Motion a confusion has arisen and what is meant by the appellate court whilst directing “Defendant no.1” to pay the said professional charges is that the said charges should be paid by Defendant no.1 in Suit No.- 3313 of 2005 i.e Prithvi Vallabh Bhalchandra Rawat who is concerned with Flat No.801 and not M/s.Shah Enterprises who is Defendant No.1 in Suit No.3384 of 1994 which is not concerned in any way with Flat No.801. 3 court receiver .33.11.sxw 3. On perusal of the order, it appears that a clarification need to be obtained by the parties from the Hon’ble Division Bench of this court on the issue of which of the “Defendant No. 1” in the two Suits is required to pay the professional fees of the valuer. The parties including the Court Receiver shall be at liberty to move the appropriate Division Bench seeking necessary clarification. 4. As regards prayer clause (d) of the Report, the Court Receiver is directed to file a separate report within a period of two weeks from today setting out the details pertaining to the breach of the agency Agreement by the Agents of the Court Receiver inter-alia seeking directions from the court on the issue as to whether the agency of the Plaintiff in Suit No.3313 of 2005 should be terminated. 5. The Court Receiver’s Report is accordingly disposed of. ( S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.) 4 court receiver .33.11.sxw