IN THE HIGH COURTOF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION ALPPEAL NO. 961 OF 2002 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1250 OF 2001 IN SUIT NO. 3972 OF 2000 Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. ... Appellant. [Orig. Plaintiffs.] Versus. Sundeep Polymers Pvt.Ltd. and Anr. ... Respondents. [Orig. Defts.] Mrs. Snehal Shah with Mr. C.S.Dhruv i/b. Dhru & Co. for the appellant. Mr. P.S.Gidwani for the respondents. CORAM CORAM CORAM : D.K.Deshmukh and : D.K.Deshmukh and : D.K.Deshmukh and A.A.Sayed, A.A.Sayed, A.A.Sayed, JJ. JJ. JJ. DATE DATE DATE : January 15, 2009. : January 15, 2009. : January 15, 2009. P.C. 1. By this appeal, the appellant challenges the order, dated 11th September, 2002 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court reducing the amount of royalty payable by the agent, who was appointed by the Court Receiver in relation to the machinery and the flat. The Court Receiver fixed the royalty in respect of the machinery at Rs. 30,000/- per month and Rs. 40,000/- per month in respect of the residential flat, which was being used as office. The learned Single Judge, by the order impugned, reduced the royalty fixed by the Court Receiver in respect of the machinery from Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 25000/- and in respect of the flat from Rs. 40,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- per month. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant took us through the order passed by the learned Single Judge and submitted that the learned Single Judge has rejected the challenge of the agent, who had taken out the Chamber Summons, to the valuation report on the basis of which the royalty was fixed by the Court Receiver. 3. The learned Single Judge has recorded a categorical finding that the valuation of the machinery as also of the flat given in the valuers report is correct. The learned Counsel pointed out that on the basis of the valuation report, the learned Single Judge has also held that the royalty fixed by the Receiver is proper. However, the learned Judge has reduced the amount of royalty in relation to the flat and the machinery only for one reason that the statement was made by the defendant that the agent-company is declared as Sick Industrial Unit. The learned Counsel submitted that there was neither any statement on oath before the learned Single Judge nor there was any document produced on record, which would indicate that as on the date when the learned Single Judge made the order, the agent-Company was declared as sick industrial unit. The learned Counsel, therefore, submitted that the only reason given by the learned Single Judge for reducing the amount of royalty is non existent. 4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The learned Counsel for the respondent is not able to point out to us either any statement made on oath before the learned Single Judge or any document produced on record, which would show that on the date of the order, the agent-Company was declared as sick industrial unit. 5. Perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge shows that she has recorded a categorical finding that the valuation of the machinery and the flat mentioned in the valuers report is correct. She has also recorded a finding that the amount of royalty fixed by the Receiver on the basis of the valuation report is also correct. However, she has reduced the amount of royalty for the reason which is to be found in paragraph 9, which reads as under :- " It is urged on behalf of the Defendants that the Defendant Company is declared as a sick unit and if they are required to pay this amount, the same will strangle the unit and they will not be in a position to carry out their work ask they desire to make the same viable unit. Bearing these factors into consideration and in order to ensure that the Defendant Company is in a position to survive and is in a position to make the unit viable, so far as the machinery is concerned, I am of the opinion that a sum of Rs. 25,000/- per month would be the adequate royalty and so far as the flat is concerned a sum of rs. 20,000/- per month would be the adequate amount of royalty which the defendants should be required to pay." 6. Perusal of the above quoted paragraph from the order shows that the only reason given by the learned Single Judge for reducing the amount of royalty fixed by the Court Receiver is that the Company is declared as sick unit. We do not find any statement made on oath to that effect by the defendant-Company nor did we find any document produced on record by the defendant-company that as on the date of the order, it was a sick unit. 7. In the result, therefore, appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order impugned in the appeal is set aside. 8. In view of disposal of the appeal itself, nothing survives in the notice motion and is disposed of accordingly. 9. At this stage, a request is made on behalf of the respondent-Company for stay on operation of this order for a period of eight weeks. The order is for payment of money and therefore, in our opinion no useful purpose would be served by staying the order. The request for stay on operation of the order is therefore rejected. [D.K.Deshmukh, [D.K.Deshmukh, [D.K.Deshmukh, J.] J.] J.] [A.A.Sayed, [A.A.Sayed, [A.A.Sayed, J.] J.] J.]