ASN 1 NMS-3034.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3034 OF 2011 IN APPEAL NO.678 OF 2011 IN COURT RECEIVER REPORT NO.163 OF 2011 IN SUIT NO.941 OF 2007 Noorjehan S. Dawood. ..Petitioner. Vs. Sajid Yakub Kantharia and ors. ..Respondnts. Ms.Mamta Sadh with Ms. R.A.Kesuri i/by M/s. Banatwala and Co. for the Petitioners. Mr. Firdosh Pooniwala with Y.R.Shah for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr.P.Y. Ladekar, Court Receiver present. Ms. Deepali Rai i/by Negandhi Shah and Himayatullah for Respondent No.6. CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C. J. AND SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATE : 23 NOVEMBER 2011 PC: This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 24 August 2011 of the learned Single Judge by which the learned Single Judge disposed of the report of the Court Receiver regarding the godown which was in possession of defendant No.2 and which was given on licence basis to one Pravin Gada. The Court Receiver submitted a report ASN 2 NMS-3034.sxw for taking directions for taking possession from Mr. Pravin Gada and the arrears of royalty. 2 The learned Single Judge has disposed of the report after noting that Pravin Gada has already handed over the possession and defendant No.2 continued to be in possession of the said premises. The learned Single Judge has also recorded the statements made on behalf of Defendant No.2 that Defendant No.2 will not commit any act by which the appointment of the Court Receiver will be affected in any way. He further stated that defendant No.2 will continue in possession in terms of the interim order passed in the suit by the Trial Court. The learned counsel for the appellant plaintiff submitted that when the Court Receiver was appointed by an order dated 6 December 2007, then possession of the godown should have been given to the Court Receiver. It is submitted that the licence fee paid by Pravin Gada is also not paid to the Court Receiver. It is also contended that the plaintiff is ready to take the possession of the godown and to pay the royalty. 3 Having heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 3 who supported the order of the learned Trial Court has submitted that the plaintiff herself has valued the suit claim i. e. her 1/6th share in the suit property at Rs.2,45,340/-. The defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are ready and willing to deposit the said amount to the Court Receiver and also to pay Rs.2,40,000/- as arrears of royalty for the said godown. ASN 3 NMS-3034.sxw 4 Having heard the learned counsel for the parties we disposed of this appeal without interfering the order of the learned Single Judge but after recording the statement that defendant Nos. 1 to 3 will deposit with the Court Receiver Rs.2,45.340/- as plaintiff’s 1/6th share as valued in the suit and Rs.2,40,000/- as arrears of royalty for godown No. 1 for the period from 1 January 2008 to 30 April 2009. 5 The Court Receiver has prayed in the report giving rise to the order under challenge in this appeal. Our attention is invited to Paragraph 7 of the order dated 9 February 2009 passed by (Smt. Roshan Dalvi, J.) on Court Receiver’s report dated 8 February 2008 which indicates that Dedhia Enterprises was to deposit Rs.1,26,000/- towards the royalty amount but amount was not deposited. The Court Receiver was called upon to take physical possession of the premises in question from Dedhia Enterprises. The learned counsel for the parties state that Dedhia Enterprises has already handed over the possession of the premises to the Court Receiver. The learned counsel for the appellant states that amount at Rs.1,26,000/- has not been paid by defendant Nos. 1 to 3 to the Court Receiver. The learned counsel for defendant Nos. 1 to 3 states that he has no instructions on this aspect. 6 While disposing of this appeal, we direct that amount of arrears i. e. Rs.1.26,000/- is not so far paid by defendant Nos. 1 to 3 to the Court Receiver which was received by defendant Nos. 1 to 3 from ASN 4 NMS-3034.sxw Dedhia Enterprises and if not paid to the Court Receiver the same shall be paid over to the Court Receiver within six weeks from today. 7 The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of in terms of the above order. CHIEF JUSTICE ( SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J. )