=1= IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL APPEAL APPEAL NO.154 OF 2006 NO.154 OF 2006 NO.154 OF 2006 IN IN IN NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE OF OF OF MOTION NO.118 OF 2003 MOTION NO.118 OF 2003 MOTION NO.118 OF 2003 IN IN IN INSOLVENCY INSOLVENCY INSOLVENCY SUIT NO.53 OF 1998 SUIT NO.53 OF 1998 SUIT NO.53 OF 1998 WITH WITH WITH APPEAL APPEAL APPEAL NO.289 NO.289 NO.289 OF 2005 OF 2005 OF 2005 IN IN IN OFFICIAL OFFICIAL OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE REPORT DATED 10.6.2003 ASSIGNEE REPORT DATED 10.6.2003 ASSIGNEE REPORT DATED 10.6.2003 IN IN IN INSOLVENCY INSOLVENCY INSOLVENCY PETITION PETITION PETITION NO.53 OF 1998 NO.53 OF 1998 NO.53 OF 1998 Mrs Rajrani Chimanlal Rawal and ors. ...Appellants v/s M/s Sterling Finance Corporation and ors. ...Respondents Ms R.C. Nichani for Appellants. Mr J.P. Sen i/b Mr A.G. Shah for Respondent No.3 - Auction Purchaser. Mr K.P. Jain i/b Mr Tushar Goradia for Official Assignee. Mr Y.C. Parekh, Official Assignee present. =2= CORAM CORAM CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND A.A. SAYED JJ. : D.K. DESHMUKH AND A.A. SAYED JJ. : D.K. DESHMUKH AND A.A. SAYED JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 12TH MARCH 2009 12TH MARCH 2009 12TH MARCH 2009 P.C. :- 1. Parties to both these appeals are common, therefore, both the appeals can be conveniently disposed off by a common order. 2. One Banarasilal Gopaldas Rawal was declared as insolvent. He was producing movies as a partner of the firm. The rights in one of the movies by name ’Dil Ne Phir Yaad Kiya’ were sold after attachment. Notice of motion was taken out by the other partner Chamanlal for lifting of the attachment. That notice of motion was dismissed for non-prosecution and therefore, appeal No.289 of 2005 has been filed by the other partner Chamanlal. The Official Assignee had put up a report before the Court for sanction to the sale of the rights of the said movie. That report was approved by the learned Single Judge and therefore, Chamanlal filed appeal No.154 of 2006. The case of the appellant is that the movie was the property of the firm M/s Rawal Films. Only one of the partners was declared insolvent and therefore the Official Assignee was not justified in =3= selling rights in the movie of all the partners of the firm. For the purpose of deciding this appeal, we can proceed on the assumption that the movie is owned by the firm. If the movie is owned by the firm and if the rights in the movie are being sold for paying creditors of only one of the partners, obviously full rights in the movie could not have been sold and therefore, there was something to be looked into in the matter. But, in this matter, it is an admitted position that the dues for recovery of which the rights in the movie are being sold are also of the partnership firm. The suit was filed by the creditors against the firm to which all partners were joined as party and decree has been passed by the Court against the firm and therefore, it is now common ground that the rights in the movie are being sold or have been sold by the Official Assignee for realising the dues against the firm itself. Because the decree holder though the decree is passed against the firm proceeded against one of the partners, only one of the partners was declared as insolvent and the property of the firm was put for auction for paying the dues of the firm. In our opinion, no fault can be found with the action of the Official Assignee of selling the property of the firm for paying of the dues of the firm. The stand taken by the appellant that though the decree was passed against the firm and though the rights in the movie are being sold for paying of the liability of the =4= firm, because he has not been declared as insolvent, his rights in the movie should not be sold, is dishonest and therefore, he does not deserve any interference at the hands of this Court. Both the appeals therefore fail and are dismissed. No order as to costs. Notice of motion No.1244 of 2006 in appeal No.154 of 2006 is disposed off. Notice of motion No.1243 of 2006 in appeal No.289 of 2005 is disposed off. . Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Associate / Private Secretary of the Court. . Certified copy is expedited. ( D.K. DESHMUKH J.) ( A.A. SAYED J.)