1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COURT RECEIVER’S REPORT NO.87 OF 2010 IN SUIT NO.1240 OF 1989 Domnic F. Pereira )..Plaintiff Vs. Joseph Paul Pereira & Ors. )..Defendants ---- Mr.Bhandary @ V.A.Almeida for the plaintiff. Mrs.F. Vongeyer i/by Denzil D’mello for the defendant no.2. Aakanksha V. Thakkar i/by Purnanand & Co. for the defendant no.7. Mr.Birendra Saraf @ S.T. Shaikh i/by S.K.Srivastav & Co. for defendant no.3. Mr.P.Y.Ladekar Court Receiver present. ---- Coram : R.S.MOHITE,J Date : 16th June, 2010 PC 1 Perused the Court Receiver’s report. As regards the basement situated in the building “Surf” 3C, Palimala Road, Bandra (West), Bombay-50, it is seen that the defendant no.1, the father of defendant no.3, was allowed to occupy the said premises as an agent of the Court Receiver. The said defendant no.1 is said to have expired in the year 1996. It is distressing to note that 2 thereafter defendant no.3 has been occupying the said premises without being appointed as an agent of the Court Receiver and without any agreement. This situation cannot be allowed to continue. In the circumstances, defendant no.3 is directed to stop his business in the said basement and to hand over the possession thereof to the Court Receiver within a period of two weeks from today. After handing over possession, defendant no.3 will be at liberty to apply to this Court for being appointed as an agent of the Court Receiver and as and when such an application is made, the same will be considered on its own merits. It would be the discretion of defendant no.3 whether or not to remove any of his articles lying in the premises before handing over the possession. 2 As regards the six store rooms in the said building, I find that there is an earlier order passed by this Court on 3.8.2009 directing the Receiver to take steps with regard to appointment of either defendant no.3 or defendant no.4 as an agent on such terms and conditions as Court may deem fit and proper. Court Receiver to issue notices to defendant nos.3 & 4 calling upon them to furnish bids as regards the royalty which they are willing to pay. Bids may be submitted by defendant nos.3 or 4 within a period of two weeks upon receipt of the notice. As regards prayer clause-(a) is concerned, Advocate for the plaintiff states that his client will co-operate with the Court Receiver. As 3 regards prayer clause-(d) is concerned, the Court Receiver is directed to ensure that his possession board specifies the property in respect of which the Receiver has been appointed and that the said board be put up on the said property on the part of the building outside the flat/premises in respect of which he has been appointed. Board should not be put up to give an impression that the Court Receiver has been appointed for the entire building. Court Receiver’s report is disposed off in the aforesaid terms. 3 It is also pointed out that in my order dated 9.6.2010 passed in this Court Receiver’s report, there is a typographical mistake in the 3 rd line of the report. The words “Defendant no.2” will be substituted by the words “Defendant no.3”. Office to carry out necessary corrections and issue fresh certified copy if applied for. (R.S.MOHITE,J) 4 5