[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.243 OF 2008 IN APPEAL NO.643 OF 2007 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1022 OF 2006 IN SUIT NO.895 OF 2006 Sevaram Ratiram Agarwal .... Appellant Vs. Jainarayan Ratiram Agarwal & Ors. .... Respondents Sri Charanjeet Chanderpal for the Appellant. Ms Veena Thadhani a/w Sri Vishal Thadhani for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SRI R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR & SRI P.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ. DATED: DATED: DATED: APRIL 30, 2008 P.C: P.C: P.C: Heard. Only ground on which the impugned order is sought to be stayed is that the liquor licence was in the name of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and, therefore, without the willingness of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 no renewal of the liquor licence can be ordered even at the instance of the Court Receiver. There is no dispute that by the order dated 4-5-2006 passed in Appeal No.357 of 2006, the Division Bench of this Court had appointed Court Receiver of the liquor business in question and the said respondents were allowed to continue to carry on the said business as the agents of the Receiver. It [2] is also undisputed fact that the said order was subjected to being tested before the Apex Court, without any success. In the circumstances, the contention which is sought to be raised, based on which the stay of the impugned order is sought for, is totally devoid of substance. As no other contention is sought to be raised in the matter, we do not find any case for grant of the relief asked for in the notice of motion. Hence the notice of motion is dismissed. (P.B.Majmudar, J.) (R.M.S.Khandeparkar, J.) sjs/A8nm243.8 sjs/A8nm243.8 sjs/A8nm243.8