1 mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.172 OF 2011 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.63 OF 2004 Tata Motors Limited Plaintiff versus Sundeep Polymers Pvt.Ltd. Defendant Ms.Shakuntala Joshi for plaintiff/claimants. None for the defendant. CORAM : S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. DATE : 18th March 2011 PC : 1. The defendant no.1 under a hire purchase agreement with the plaintiff had purchased a Mercedes Benz car. The defendant no.1 failed to make payments to the plaintiff as agreed. The matter was referred to arbitration and an award was made in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant no.1 failed to pay to the plaintiff the amount ordered under the said award. The plaintiff therefore took out Chamber Summons No.48 of 2004 in Execution Application (L) No.605 of 2002 in Award dated 8th July 2002 inter alia seeking appointment of Court Receiver in respect of the said vehicle. The said Chamber Summons was disposed of vide order dated 1st July 2004 (Coram : S.C.Dharmadhikari, J.). Paragraph no.3 of the said order is relevant and is reproduced herebelow :- "3. On a perusal of affidavit filed in support of this Chamber Summons and after hearing Ms.Joshi and Mr.Dhakephalkar, in my view, this is a fit case where the Court Receiver, High Court, should be appointed as receiver in execution of this award and he should take 2 possession of the suit vehicle. Mr.Dhakephalkar makes a statement that possession of the suit vehicle will be given to the court receiver or in any event, the respondent no.1 has no objection if the court receiver takes possession of the suit vehicle from the custody of M/s.Dialmer Chrysler. My attention has also been invited to the letter addressed by the added respondent no.2 to the petitioner-decree holder pointing out that they are in possession of the vehicle. Although reliance is placed upon some order of National Commission, in my view, the interest of justice requires that Court Receiver, High Court should take possession of the suit vehicle being Mercedez Benz car bearing Registration No.MH-01-V-5848. The Court Receiver to take possession of this vehicle forthwith from respondent no.2. All authorities are directed to co-operate with the receiver in taking possession of suit vehicle from the custody of respondent no.2. Receiver to make report to this Court after taking possession of the vehicle." 2. The Court Receiver took possession of the said vehicle on 24th November 2004. The said vehicle is lying unused since that day i.e. since more than six years. Not only the said vehicle will fetch scrap value as of today but the plaintiff is also required to pay the detention charges to the company i.e. M/s.Dialmer Chrysler. The plaintiff has therefore taken out the present Chamber Summons seeking permission of this Court to sell the vehicle in question by private treaty under the supervision of the Court Receiver on `as is where is' basis. The plaintiff is also seeking a direction against the Court Receiver to hand over an amount of Rs.61,245/- to the plaintiff with accrued interest thereon, which amount was deposited by the defendant no.1 with the Court Receiver for using the said vehicle as an agent of the Receiver. 3. In view thereof, following order is passed :- (a) The plaintiff shall get the vehicle valued and sell the same by a private treaty on `as is where is' basis by keeping the Court Receiver informed qua all the steps taken pertaining to the sale of the said vehicle; (b) After sale of the said vehicle, the plaintiff shall credit the sale 3 proceeds to the account of the first defendant; (c) The Court Receiver shall return a sum of Rs.61,245/- along with interest accrued thereon, if any, after deducting his costs, charges and expenses to the plaintiff; (d) The Chamber Summons is accordingly disposed of. (S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.)