IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2225 OF 2009 IN APPEAL (L) NO.203 OF 2009 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.864 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO.453 OF 2009 Vijay Dwellers Private Limited and others. ... Appellants Versus Smart Microsoft (Mumbai) Pvt.Ltd. and others. ... Respondents Mr. Saurav Kripal with Mr. Sanjay Jain and Mr. Kiran Kulkarni i/by M/s. M. Narendra & Co. for the appellants. Mr. Janak Dwarkadas, Senior Advocate with Mr. Mustafa Doctor i/by M/s. RKM Legal Services for the respondent No.1. Mr. Darshan R. Mehta i/by M/s. Dhruve Liladhar & Co. for the respondent No.2. Mr. K.L. Vyas, Court Receiver present. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & A.M. KHANWILKAR, J. DATED : 21ST JULY, 2009 P.C. This notice of motion has been taken out by the appellants-applicants praying that it be clarified that they have complied the order dated 8th April, 2009. 2. It is averred that the order passed by the Bench dated 8th April, 2009 was uploaded on the internet only on 25th May, 2009 and within a period of one week thereafter they had furnished the details of the six flats in terms of clause (3) of the order and thus, the consequences stated in clause (5) of the order will not follow. According to them, they had vide letter dated 13th April, 2009 written to the Court receiver about the details of six flats. However, the said letter was not accepted in the office of the Court Receiver. This stand is supported by the other appellants in Appeal Nos. 204, 218, 219, 220 and 221 of 2009. 3. However, there is a specific denial thereof by the Court Receiver as well as by the other respondents appearing in the appeals. According to them, a letter dated 13th April, 2009 was never received by the Court Receiver and was never refused by the Court Receiver. This factual controversy created some doubt in the mind of the court and, therefore, by order dated 30th June, 2009, the appellants were directed to file proper affidavit stating as to who had issued the letter dated 13th April, 2009. Today in court, letter dated 20th July, 2009 of Mayur Narendra & Co. has been filed, informing that the letter dated 13th April, 2009 was not accepted by the office of the Court Receiver. 4. We may reiterate that this situation is not admitted by the Court Receiver as well as the other applicants. In fact, according to them in the letter dated 15th June, 2009, no mention was made to the letter dated 13th April, 2009 and, therefore, it should be presumed that there was no compliance to the terms of clause (3) of the order dated 8th April, 2009. On the other hand, it is contended that in the letter dated 15th June, 2009, it was specifically averred that the Court Receiver had not accepted the said letter. We find it unnecessary to get into this factual controversy and to find out as to which of the letters are correct or incorrect. The letter dated 20th July, 2009 issued by the counsel does confirm the issuance of letter dated 13th April, 2009 but at the same time, we do not think that there would be any reason for the Court Receiver to decline to accept the said letter. 5. Be that as it may, it is not really necessary for us to keep this notice of motion pending and find out further details. It is not disputed before us that details of all the six flats have since been furnished to the Court Receiver. The Court Receiver has inspected the property which is stated to be under construction. Firstly we do not think that any prejudice would be caused to any of the parties because the property in question is identified. Clause (4) of the order dated 8th April, 2009 clearly restrain the parties in any way to create third party interest in the property and shall be bound by the decree that may be passed in accordance with law. Moreover, on verification from the Registry, it is confirmed that the order was uploaded on 25th June, 2009. We direct the Registry to be careful in future. 6. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances to meet the ends of justice, we hold that the order dated 8th April, 2009 shall be deemed to have been complied with. Notice of Motion is accordingly, disposed of. CHIEF JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.