*1* jo.371.10.nms.965.10.s.2823.09 kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION JUDGES ORDER NO.371 OF 2010 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.965 OF 2010 IN SUIT NO.2823 OF 2009. M/s SBI Global Factors Ltd.. ..Plaintiffs -Versus- M/s Minar International Limited and others. ..Defendants .......... Mr.P.K.Samdani, Senior Counsel a/w Mr.Chirag Balsara i/b K.Ashar & Company, for the Plaintiffs. Ms.Shivani Bansal i/b Raval Shah & Company, for the Defendants. .......... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 20th December, 2010. P.C. 1 This is Judges Order praying for forcible possession by the Court Receiver of the immovable properties of which he stands appointed as such vide order dated 25.10.2010. 2 It is pointed out by the Plaintiffs on affidavit that the Plaintiffs attempted to have this order executed by taking the representative of the Court Receiver to the site. When the Court Receiver’s representative visited the site, this visit was duly notified in advance to the Defendants’ Advocate and particularly by communication dated 01.12.2010 which is received by the Defendants’ Advocate in Mumbai on 03.12.2010. Despite this advance intimation, in paragraph Nos.6 and 8 of the affidavit in support of the Judges Order, it has been set out as to how deliberate attempts were made not to hand over possession of the *2* jo.371.10.nms.965.10.s.2823.09 immovable properties to the Court Receiver and thus, the Defendants are obstructing the execution and implementation of the order passed by this Court. 3 It is pointed out that there has been intimation to and even communication with the Defendants’ Advocate at Mumbai. I find much substance in the contentions of Mr.Balsara that the representatives of the Defendants were contacted by the Plaintiffs but the version of the Defendants’ Advocate that they were unable to do so is not genuine and bonafide. It is, thus, clear that the Defendants in the garb of award against one Manoj Kumar refused to handover vacant and peaceful possession to the Court Receiver. The Defendants’ Advocate would repeat the objections raised during the course of arguments on the Notice of Motion and particularly as noted in the order dated 25.10.2010. Once there is an order passed after hearing both sides and the Court concluding that prima facie the claim of Manoj Kumar has not been proved nor there is award or decree in pursuance thereof, then, the same arguments cannot be considered. 4 For all these reasons, this Judges Order is made absolute and that is why I am persuaded to sign the Judges Order. 5 Needless to state that the Court Receiver shall be at liberty to take forcible possession of the immovable properties more particularly described in the schedule and referred to in the order dated 25.10.2010, on or before 02nd January, 2011. Needless to further state that the Court Receiver would be at liberty to seek assistance of the local Court and/or the local Police Station to implement and execute the order of this Court and I have no doubt in my mind that such authorities will cooperate with the Court Receiver if requested so. 6 A request is made by Mr.Samdani that the local Revenue *3* jo.371.10.nms.965.10.s.2823.09 Authority may also render such assistance as is needed by the Court Receiver. I have no doubt in my mind that on production of the authenticated copy of the order passed by this Court today and also on 25.10.2010, all such authorities will extend their assistance as is needed by the Court Receiver. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)