: 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 COURT RECEIVER’S REPORT NO.202 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.4771 OF 2000 SBI Capital Markets Ltd. ..Plaintiffs. Vs. Gilt Pack Ltd. ..Defendants. Mr.C.K.Ardeshir i/b.M/s.Kanga & Co. for the Plaintiffs. Mr.H.N.Thakore i/b.M/s.Thakore Jariwala & Associates for the Defendants. Mrs.U.S.Srivastava, 2nd Asstt. to Court Receiver present. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 1ST AUGUST, 2008 DATED : 1ST AUGUST, 2008 DATED : 1ST AUGUST, 2008 P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : The Receiver’s Report was unnecessary. The order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 31.10.2007 and the order of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 14.3.2008 are clear and unequivocal. The Division Bench and the learned Single Judge have expressly held that the suit properties do not belong to the Defendant company. In fact, both the orders expressly hold that the suit properties belong to the Plaintiff. It is also admitted that the Defendant at no stage accepted the agency of the Court Receiver. The Court Receiver is : 2 : now duty bound to execute the said order inter-alia by taking physical possession of the suit machinery. 2. I do not see any ambiguity or reason for doubt from the orders of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court or from the minutes of the meeting before the Official Liquidator, who has been appointed in respect of the Defendant. The learned Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Company Petition No.3 of 2007 in paragraph 4 has merely directed the Official Liquidator to take further steps in the case for liquidating "the assets of the company". The learned Judge has not anywhere observed that the suit properties belong to the Defendant or that they do not belong to the Plaintiff. That issue therefore now stands concluded atleast at this stage by the two orders of this Court. 3. The minutes of the meeting held before the Official Liquidator on 24.5.2008 also do not say anything to the contrary. In fact, the former Director of the Defendant was also present at the meeting. Indeed, it would have been surprising if he had contended to the contrary in the face of the two orders of this Court. The minutes do not indicate that he has done so. : 3 : 4. In the circumstances, there is nothing which now prevents the Court Receiver from implementing the two orders of this Court. He shall do so forthwith. No further orders on the Court Receiver’s Report are called for. 5. The Court Receiver shall on or before 6.8.2008 address a letter to the Official Liquidator informing him about the said two orders and of this order. The Receiver’s Report stands disposed of.