:1: :1: :1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 871 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO.1234 OF 2004 Chandraprakash Ramdas Mishra and 2 Ors. ...Plaintiffs Versus Smt.Dharmadevi Bhola Mishra and 7 Ors. ....Defendants ====== Mr.M.S.Bhandari, Adv. for the plaintiffs. Mr.S.A.Ahmed, Adv. for the Defendant nos.1 to 3. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 10TH APRIL, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. This is a Chamber Summons by the plaintiffs. The Chamber Summons is to challenge an order dated 3.5.2007 which has been passed by the Commissioner for Taking Accounts. 2. It is stated before me by Mr.Bhandari :2: :2: :2: appearing for the plaintiffs that the Commissioner for Taking Accounts commenced the proceedings pursuant to the order and direction of this court. The dispute is a partnership dispute and therefore Accounts have to be taken. After deciding the period for which the Accounts have to be taken, the Commissioner appointed one M/s.Chaudhari Pradhan and Dev, Chartered Accountants as Auditors and directed the plaintiffs to deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/-. This part of the order has not been challenged before me, inasmuch as, the plaintiffs have reserved their right to challenge this order while impugning the final order of the Commissioner. 3. The other issue was with regard to determining the Assets of the partnership firm and as far as that issue is concerned, another interim order came to be passed on 10.01.2007. This interim order also is not subject matter of challenge before me. 4. It is urged by Mr.Bhandari that the Chartered Accountants who have been appointed pursuant to the interim order dated 24.4.2006 and the another Chartered :3: :3: :3: Accountant M/S.C.V.K. and Associates submitted their quotations. The quotations were on the higher side and the fees were therefore not affordable. The plaintiffs gave several alternate suggestions to the Commissioner for Taking Accounts. However, it is urged before me that the initial quantum of Audit Fees was Rs.25,000/- p.a. but the same was increased to Rs.1,50,000/- p.a. This made the entire reference to the Commissioner very difficult for the plaintiffs to prosecute. Apart from the legal costs, the burden on the plaintiffs as far as Audit Fees are concerned, is also too heavy. 5. Therefore, the submission is that this court should determine the quantum and the yearly Audit fees and thereafter direct the Commissioner for Taking Account to appoint an Auditor who is ready and willing to work at the said fees. 6. The Learned Advocate appearing for Defendant nos.1 to 3 submits that the proceedings are going on for quite sometime and for some reason or the other, the plaintiffs do not desire to proceed with the matter before the Commissioner for Taking Accounts. It was :4: :4: :4: contended that the plaintiffs were called upon to pay the valuation fees also. The plaintiffs have not complied with these directions. Today, under the garb of challenging the quantum of Audit fees, the plaintiffs are prolonging the matter further. 7. After hearing both sides and taking over all view of the matter, it appears to me that the courts orders and more particularly dated 18.2.2005 passing a preliminary Decree in the Suit and appointing the Commissioner for Taking Accounts, so also, effecting partition of the assets of the Firm, must be implemented and given effect to. The matters are pending for the last more than 3 years. After the preliminary Decree was passed, the Commissioner for Taking Account was expected to proceed and take Accounts and therefore implement the Direction of this court. 8. Today, the matter is pending at the stage of Audit fees itself. In such circumstances and when both sides desire quashing and setting aside of the order dated 3.5.2007 and fixing of Audit fees, interest of :5: :5: :5: justice would be subserved if the Commissioner for Taking Account assigns the work of Audit of Accounts, in pursuance of his directions dated 24.4.2006, to a Chartered Account Firm on his panel provided they are willing to complete the assignment by accepting consolidated fees per annum. Accordingly, it is directed that the Audit fees per annum be determined at Rs.50,000/- and such of the Chartered Accountants who are on the panel of the Commissioner for Taking Accounts/Court Receiver/Official Liquidator who are willing to take up the assignment shall be appointed by the Commissioner. However, they shall be given this assignment with a clear direction to complete it within such period as the Commissioner may deem fit and proper. 8. The order dated 3.5.2007 is quashed and set aside. The Commissioner to abide by the above directions. 9. The Commissioner for Taking Accounts to proceed and appoint the Auditor expeditiously as possible and within a period of 4 weeks from the date :6: :6: :6: of receipt of this order. The Commissioner to also grant such time as it deems fit and proper to the Auditor to submit a Report to him. The Commissioner to then endeavour and dispose off the proceedings as expeditiously as possible. 10 Mr.Bhandari, after taking instructions from the plaintiff that initially the plaintiffs would put the Commissioner in funds and deposit with him Rs.50,000/- subject, however, to further orders and directions that may be passed by the Commissioner and court subsequently. Mr.Bhandari, submits that the plaintiffs reserve their right to seek appropriate directions from the Commissioner including reimbursement and repayment of the sum of Rs.50,000/- and other miscellaneous expenses as incurred by them. The Chamber Summons is disposed off in the above terms. 11 Mr.Bhandari, makes a statement that the valuation charges of M/s.V.B.Nadkarni and Co., if not paid would be paid within a period of four weeks from today. sd/- :7: :7: :7: *********