- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1617 OF 2006 IN SUIT NO.1234 OF 2004 1.Chandraprakash Ramdas Mishra and another. ...Plaintiffs VS. 1.Smt.Dharmadevi Bhola Mishra and others. ...Defendants and The Court Receiver, High Court Bombay. ...Respondent. --- Mr.M.S.Bhandari i/b. H.V.Chande, for Plaintiffs. Mr.S.G.Aney i/b. A.M.Dubey, for Defendant nos.1 to 3. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH, J. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH, J. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH, J. DATED: 25th January,2008. DATED: 25th January,2008. DATED: 25th January,2008. P.C. P.C. P.C.: . Heard the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides. It appears from the order of the Receiver that the method for arriving at the amount of royalty suggested by the applicants, who have taken out this chamber summons, was not examined by the Receiver because the question of identification and valuation of the assets of the firm was pending before the - 2 - Commissioner. In my opinion, therefore, the following order would meet the ends of justice:- 1. The applicants shall continue to pay royalty at the interim rate fixed by order dated 6.5.2004. 2. The applicants shall furnish bank guarantee of the balance amount i.e. the difference between the amounts arrived at the rate fixed by the Receiver and the rate of interim royalty fixed by order dated 6.5.2004. They shall continue to frunish bank guarantee quarterly of that amount. After the report of the commissioner regarding identification and valuation of the assets is received, the applicant shall move the Receiver for reconsideration of the issue. The Receiver shall reconsider the entire issue and fix the amount of royalty which is required to be fixed pursuant to the order of the Court dated 18.2.2005. ---