IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.288/2008 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1617/2006 IN SUITNO.1234 /2004 Chandrapraksh R.Mishra & Ors. Appellant/Ori.Plffs. Vs. Smt.Dharmadevi B.Mishra & Ors. Respondents 1-8/ Ori.Defts. AND The Court Receiver High Court,Bombay Respondent no.9 Ori.Res.to Ch.S. Mr.M.S.Bhandari i/b Mr.H.V.Chande A.P.P. Mr.S.A.Ahmed i/b Mr.A.M.Dube advocate for Respondent no.1 and 2 Mr.K.L.Vyas ,C.R.,High Court,Bombay CORAM: S.B.Mhase , & Prasanna B.Varale , J.J. DATED : July,29th ,2008. P.C. 1] This is an appeal filed by the original Plaintiffs challenging the order dt.25-1-2008 in Chamber Summons No. 1617/2006 in Suit no. 1234/2004 . The Plaintiffs had filed suit for dissolution of partnership firm . In the said suit the preliminary decree by consent of 2 the parties was passed on 18/2/2005 .The firm is dissolved by the said preliminary decree . The suit is decreed in terms of prayer clause 'A' excluding bracketed portion and also in terms of prayer clause 'B' in respect of the shares of the parties. The plaintiffs i.e. Appellant no.1,2,3 are entitled for 19% share each and defendant no.1 i.e. Respondent no.1 is entitled for 12 % share and respondent no.2 & 3/ defendant no.2 & 3 each are entitled for 14% share. The commissioner has been appointed for taking accounts of the said firm and the commissioner is also directed to determine the question as to which are the assets of the firm. Then in clause 4 it is directed that defendant no.1,2,3 i.e.respondents shall continue to conduct the business , however , they will be liable to pay royalty . The Receiver of the Court is appointed only for limited purpose for working out the amount of royalty which the defendant no.1,2 & 3 would liable to pay and it is further directed till the royalty was determined by the Receiver , the defendant no.1,2 and 3 would continue to deposit the amount as per ad interim order dated 6th May,2004 and the plaintiff is allowed to withdraw the said amount of royalty . 2] In view of this the Receiver has fixed the amount of Royalty . However , it was not approved by the respondents and therefore, they have taken the Chamber Summons. In Chamber Summons the learned Single Judge observed that the Receiver cannot fix up the royalty at this stage because the properties have not been identified, etc.. The appellant challenged the reasoning of the learned Single Judge . He states that according to him the assessment of the accounts is a matter 3 to be considered by the Commissioner and the Receiver was to consider royalty for running business. He states that the question of royalty is depending upon running business and not upon the assets of the firm. The learned counsel for the respondents tried to submit that unless and until the accounts are settled by the Commissioner the royalty cannot be fixed. We are not in agreement with the learned counsel for the respondents . Except this no other submissions were made before this Court in respect of evaluation carried out by the Receiver . Therefore, what we find that the Chamber Summons is disposed of on improper reasoning .We set aside the order dated 25/1/2008 and direct that defendant no.1,2 and 3 as per compromise decree deposit the amount of royalty as fixed by the Receiver minus the interim royalty paid . This royalty shall be deposited within period of four weeks from today. If the amount is not paid within four weeks the plaintiff is entitled to encash bank guarantee which is given by the respondents. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. (Prasanna B.Varale,J.) (S.B.Mhase, J.)