1 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. APPEAL NO. 53 OF 2009 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 379 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO. 921 OF 2005 M/s. Industrial Security Consultants ..Appellant Vs. 1. Roopam Fashions Pvt. Ltd. And ors. ..Respondents Mr. A.J. Rizvi for appellant. Mr. Paresh Shah i/by M/s. Vimadalal and Co. for respondent nos.1 to 4. Mr. S.B. Pawar i/by S.K. Legal Associate for respondent no.7. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & S.J.VAZIFDAR, JJ. June 24, 2009. P.C. 1. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The limited question raised before the learned Single Judge was regarding the payment of the security contractor’s bills. It was claimed by the appellant/agency that they are guarding the suit building for which the Court Receiver has been appointed and, therefore, they claim recovery of wages from the Court Receiver and by the impugned order dated 15/12/2008 the learned Single Judge dismissed the Chamber Summons holding that the security agency was required to take appropriate proceedings for recovery of wages against the plaintiff. 2 2. The reasoning set out by the learned Single Judge does not call for any reconsiderations by us and it was agreed that the plaintiff would be responsible for payment of the appellant’s bills. It is to be noted that there is no contract between the appellant – security agency and the Court Receiver. 3. Hence, the appeal fails at the threshold and the same is dismissed in limine. (S.J.VAZIFDAR,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)