:1: :1: :1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 4394 OF 2006 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2127 OF 2005 IN SUIT NO. 428 OF 2004 Vijay Amrut Multani .....Plaintiffs. vs. Vinod Radheshyam Hinduja and Ors. .....Defendants. Mr.Chetan Kapadia with H.S.Kothawala i/by.Nankani and Associates for the Plaintiffs. Mr.V.N.Tendulkar for the Defendants in support. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: S.J.VAZIFDAR, J. S.J.VAZIFDAR, J. S.J.VAZIFDAR, J. DECEMBER DECEMBER DECEMBER 20, 2006. 20, 2006. 20, 2006. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : . By consent, the Notice of Motion is heard finally. 1. The challenge to the Receiver charging royalty is unsustainable. Any grievance in that regard can only be way of appeal against the order appointing :2: :2: :2: the Court Receiver. As far as valuation is concerned, the Defendants are at liberty to adopt appropriate proceedings. 2. Notice of Motion is accordingly disposed off. sd/- *********