: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 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3835 OF 2007 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3835 OF 2007 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3835 OF 2007 IN IN IN SUIT NO.434 OF 2003 SUIT NO.434 OF 2003 SUIT NO.434 OF 2003 I.C.I.C.I. Bank Ltd. ..Plaintiffs. Vs. O.L. of Mardia Chemicals Ltd. (In Liqn.) & Ors. ..Defendants,. And Rasiklal S. Mardia ..Applicant. Mr.Birendra Saraf with Mr.Mayur Bhojwani i/b.M/s.M.K.Ambalal & Co. for the Plaintiffs. Mr.Kalpesh Parekh i/b.M/s.Progna Thakkar & Co. for Defendant No.2. Mr.Rasiklal Mardia, Applicantn. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 7TH JANUARY, 2008 DATED : 7TH JANUARY, 2008 DATED : 7TH JANUARY, 2008 P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : The Applicant, wrongly mentioned in the title as the intervenor, seeks the following reliefs :- (a) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay to take fresh inventory and valuation of entire movables and immovables lying and being situated at factory premises at Mardia :2: Chemicals Limited, Mardia Nagar, Sayla Taluka, District Surendranagar, Gujarat and that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct for comparison and reconciliation of the same with the inventory taken by the present valuers; (b) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct a C.B.I. Investigation for the methodology adopted by the plaintiff, Valuers and the Court Receiver in carrying out the inventory work, and consequent Copy a to d (c) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct for recoupment of loss to the properties by the responsible; (d) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to make inquiry about the large scale theft taken place at factory premises of the defendant company particularly when plaintiffs have appointed their own security agency and that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct for immediate change of Security Agency appointed by the plaintiff; :3: 2. The Applicant states that he is a guarantor in respect of a loan and he is also a shareholder. He therefore submits that any wrongful act on the part of the Plaintiff would affect his rights. 3. This is the Plaintiff’s suit for recovery of various amounts against the Respondent. The Respondent is in liquidation. The Official Liquidator stands appointed in respect of the company and has in fact been brought on record. 4. I do not suggest that the intervenor does not have any rights in the event of it being founded that there was any wrongful act on the part of the Defendants, Court Receiver or the Official Liquidator. However, such rights cannot be agitated in the Plaintiff’s suit for recovery of money. The intervenor must adopt proceedings in accordance with the law either to raise or to defend a claim. This order does not prevent him from doing so. 4. With the aforesaid clarification, the Notice of Motion stands dismissed.