IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COURT RECEIVER’S REPORT NO.137 OF 2007 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO.435 OF 2001 Tata Finance Ltd. ....Petitioner V/s. M/s.Viral Syntex Ltd. ....Respondents None for the Petitioner. None for the Respondents. Mr.D.V. Deokar, 1st Assistant to the Court Receiver. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 5TH JULY, 2007. P.C. : 1. When the Court Receiver went to execute the order dated 6.8.2001, it was found that the model number of the machine did not co-relate with the model number in the invoice. Further EXIM Bank claims to have a charge over the said property. 2. Further there is no explanation on record from the Petitioner regarding the above. In the circumstances, it will be necessary for the Petitioner to file appropriate proceedings against EXIM Bank either in this Petition or otherwise. 3. Till such time, it would not be possible for the Court Receiver to execute the order. 4. The Court Receiver’s Report is accordingly disposed of.