IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION SUIT NO. 852 OF 1995 in COURT RECEIVER’S REPORT NO.283 OF 2009 Avijit Chatterjee ....Plaintiff Vs Smt Shanta Tolat ....Defendant. Mr.V.Y.Sanglikar for Plaintiff Mr.Nilesh Modi a/w Mr Harshal Manik i.b M/s Rustomji Ginwala & Co for Defendant Coram : R. V. MORE, J. Date : January 12, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. In so far as prayer clause (a) is concerned, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that out of the royalty amount of his 50 % share he has only withdrawn an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- approximately after giving bank guarantee. He submits that an amount of Rs. 19,00,000/- approximately is lying with the Court Receiver out of the balance amount of his 50 % share. He further states that the plaintiff does not intend to withdraw the said amount at this stage and if he intends to withdraw the amount in future, the same will be withdrawn after giving bank guarantee. In view of the said statement, prayer clause (a) will not survive. 2. In so far as prayer clause (b) is concerned, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that a comprehensive insurance policy of the suit flat for an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- is taken. This is objected by the learned counsel for the defendant on the ground that price of the suit flat is approximately Rs.8 crores and therefore, the plaintiff must take out a policy for an amount equivalent to the market price of the suit flat . Learned counsel for the plaintiff states that it is the policy of the Insurance Company not to pay more than cost of construction of the flat in case of fire, earthquake damage etc, This statement is disputed by learned counsel for the defendant. Learned counsel for the plaintiff is therefore, directed to produce on record the relevant guidelines of the Insurance Company on the next date. 3. So far as prayer clause (c) is concerned, learned counsel for the defendant submitted that it is not necessary to appoint an independent qualified Chartered Accountant and she will be satisfied if regular accounts are kept by the Court Receiver's office and therefore, prayer clause (c) also does not surviv e. Court Receiver's report so far prayer clauses (a) and (c) is concerned is disposed of. The Court Receiver shall comply with para 2 of the order of this Court passed on 24.8.2009 by the next date. S.O.to 12.2.2010 to consider prayer clause (b) and further report as per above directions. R. V. MORE, J.