904-S671-02.DOC ars IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO. 671 OF 2002 ALONG WITH COURT RECIEVER’S REPORT NO. 279 OF 2008 ALONG WITH COURT RECEIVER’S REPORT NO.214 OF 2009 Rashid S. Oomerbhoy …Plaintiffs Versus Nargis M. Oomerbhoy & Ors. …Defendants Mr. Astad Randeria, a/w Aditi Prabhu, i/b M/s. Desai, Desai & Carrimjee, for the Plaintiffs. Mr. K.G.Munshi, i/b M/s. T.Jariwala & Asso., for Defendant No.1 Mr. Rahul Singh, for the Defendants Nos.4,5 & 6. Mr. Bandodkar, IInd Assistant to Court Receiver present. Mr. H.R.Sirpotdar, Assistant Assessor & Collector 'E' ward present. Mr. R.Y. Shirsikar, for the Corporation. CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED: 3rd September 2014 PC:- 1. Mr. H.R. Sirpotdar, Assistant Assessor & Collector ‘E’ ward, is personally present Court. He has with him a statement of the details of the repair cess and municipal property taxes in respect of the properties in ‘E’ ward that are among the properties that are the subject matter of the previous order dated 4th August 2014. The 1 of 4 904-S671-02.DOC Officer concerned from ‘G’ ward where the Dadar building is located is not present, neither is any person from the Superintendent of Land Records. 2. The Court Receiver shall take the details of the municipal taxes for the ‘E’ ward building from Mr. H.R. Sirpotdar. These shall be sent to the advocates for the two groups on or before 5th September 2014. Court Receiver is directed to immediately telephone the ‘G’ ward office as also Superintendent of Land Records and ask their officers to remain present in Court today at 3.00 p.m. 3. The further presence of Mr. H.R. Sirpotdar of ‘E’ ward is excused. Continued at 3.00 p.m. 4. Mr. Munshi, learned advocate for Defendant No. 7 and representing Majid Group, states that from the statements given by the officer from ‘E’ Ward the break-up for the Osmania and Mohammadi Buildings is unclear, as is the proportionate share of the repair cess and property tax in respect of the mill premises. So far as the Osmania and Mohammadi Buildings are concerned, the amount in respect of these buildings will have to be paid by the Majid Group and that amount needs to be ascertained. The Court Receiver shall in co-ordination with the ‘E’ Ward Officer work out the amount for these two buildings and convey this to the advocates for the Majid Group. So far as the division of the amount in respect of the mill lands are concerned, that will be determined once the 2 of 4 904-S671-02.DOC accounts are finalized and an order made on the report in that regard. 5. Mr. Ramesh Vasudeo Diwan, (Inspector), Assistant Assessor & Collector, G/North Ward is present at 3.00 p.m. He has brought a statement of the repairs cess and municipal property taxes in respect of the two Dadar buildings. This is also handed over to the Court Receiver, who shall send copies to the advocates for the two groups. 6. Mr. Balkrishna Vasudeo Toraskar and Mr. P.R. Kadam, representatives of the Superintendent of Land Records are also now personally present in Court. They say that their procedure requires notice to be given to adjacent plot owners and certain formalities to be completed. In this case, since the division is entirely internal, the requirement of that notice to adjacent plot owners is dispensed with and is not to be given. The Superintendent of Land Records will not insist on such notice. The other formalities are to be completed within a period of 15 days from today, i.e., on or before 17th September 2014. 7. Any fees payable to the Office of the Superintendent of Land Records shall be initially paid by the Court Receiver and will be recovered equally from the two groups. Mr. Randeria, for the Plaintiff and the Sattar Group, is justified in saying that should there be any other requirement, the Superintendent of Land Record will communicate this without delay to the Court Receiver, who will then move immediately for suitable directions. 3 of 4 904-S671-02.DOC 8. Mr. Randeria points out that at the time when the matter was before the Commissioner for Taking Accounts, certain original documents including the documents of title were handed over by or on behalf of the two groups to the Commissioner. Parties are at liberty to take back the documents in respect of the properties now allotted to each of the two groups, except the mill premises. 9. The Commissioner for Taking Accounts shall hand over the documents relating to each property to the group to which that property has been allotted, irrespective of who submitted that document to the Commissioner for Taking Accounts. For the record, parties obtaining these documents must substitute them with photocopies authenticated by their advocates and these authenticated copies shall be retained on the file of the Commissioner for Taking Accounts. 10. As regards the documents pertaining to the mill premises, including the title documents if any, these are to be handed by the Commissioner for Taking Accounts to the Court Receiver for the present. A set of photocopies is to be retained by the Commissioner for Taking Accounts. 11. Suit to be listed for further directions on 18th September 2014. (G. S. PATEL, J.) 4 of 4