1 SSK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.425 OF 2009 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1529 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO. 4260 OF 1999 WITH APPEAL NO. 441 OF 2009 IN COURT RECEIVER’S REPORT NO.12 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO. 4260 OF 1999 Maize Products ....Appellant Versus SBI Home Finance Limited & Anr. ....Respondents Mr. Pravin Diwan a/w. Mr.Mayur Khandeparkar i/b. Kanga and Co., Advocates for the Appellant. Mr. M.P.S.Rao, Sr.Advocate a/w. Mr. D. Das, Advocate i/b. M/s. M. V. Kini & Co., Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr. K. L. Vyas, Court Receiver in person. Ms. A. S. Pai for Official Liquidator. CORAM : D. K. DESHMUKH & R. V. MORE, JJ. DATED : 29TH APRIL, 2010. P.C.: Both these appeals are directed against the same order passed by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, both these appeals can be conveniently disposed of, by a common order. 2 2. The machinery belonging to the plaintiff – SBI Home Finance Ltd. was taken on lease by the Defendant No.1-Western Paques India Limited. They gave that machinery in possession of Defendant No.2 who is the present appellant. In the suit, Receiver was appointed on the machinery. The appellant agreed to be agent of the Receiver on royalty and security. The Receiver submitted a report fixing the amount of royalty and the chamber summons was taken out for challenging the amount of royalty fixed by the Receiver. Both the proceedings have been disposed of by a common order dated 1st July, 2009. As the appellant agreed to be agent of the Receiver on royalty, he cannot not dispute his liability to pay the royalty, because the order appointing him as agent on payment of royalty has become final. So far as the quantum of royalty is concerned, perusal of the order impugned shows that the learned Single Judge has considered all the relevant aspects of the matter and has in fact reduced the amount of royalty that was fixed by the Receiver. That is the finding of the fact recorded by the learned Single Judge. We find that there is material on record to support that finding and therefore, in our opinion, it will not be appropriate for us to interfere in the matter. The submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant about valuation of the machinery, about the claims made by the plaintiff, in our opinion are not relevant because liability of the appellant to pay royalty cannot be disputed and we find that while fixing royalty, the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration 3 all relevant aspects including the valuation report. The appeals are therefore, dismissed. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants stated that they have already written to the Receiver that they do not want to continue as Agent and the Receiver is free to take away the machinery. The Receiver is present, he states that he is contacting the plaintiff and taking steps to take possession of the machinery. He states that possession of the machinery will be taken as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six weeks from today, provided the plaintiff co-operates. The plaintiff is directed to co-operate with the Receiver in taking possession of the machinery. The Receiver to serve copy of this order on the plaintiff. 4. In view of disposal of the appeals, the notice of motion no.120 of 2010 does not survive for consideration and same is disposed of, as such. (D. K. DESHMUKH, J.) (R. V. MORE, J.)