[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.621 OF 2007 APPEAL NO.621 OF 2007 APPEAL NO.621 OF 2007 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3631 OF 2005 IN SUIT NO.3162 OF 2005 ALONG WITH ALONG WITH ALONG WITH COURT RECEIVER’S REPORT NO.127 OF 2008 COURT RECEIVER’S REPORT NO.127 OF 2008 COURT RECEIVER’S REPORT NO.127 OF 2008 Nina Anil Shah .... Appellant Vs. M/s. Chitralekha Builders and others .... Respondents Shri Rajeshwar Govilkar, Advocate, for the Appellant. Sarvasri Nitin Thakkar, Senior Counsel i/b L. Rambhia, Advocate, for the Respondent No.1. Sarvasri M.P.S. Rao, Senior Counsel a/w Ms Savita Sadanandan i/b Dr. (Mrs.) R.R. Ajinkya, Advocates for the Respondent No.2. Shri D.V. Deokar and Ms Uma Srivastava, Ist and IInd Asst. respectively to the Court Receiver present. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SRI R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR & SRI P.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ. DATED: DATED: DATED: APRIL 25, 2008 P.C: P.C: P.C: 1. This appeal arises from the order dated 30-7-2007 passed in Notice of Motion No.3631 of 2005 in Suit No.3162 of 2005. By the impugned order, the learned single Judge has dismissed the notice of motion and refused to appoint Receiver. 2. While assailing the impugned order, the learned [2] Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the learned single Judge failed to take note of the well established principle of law that moment proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 are initiated, the award becomes non-executable and in that context the learned single Judge could not have been influenced by the fact that the appellant had not complied with the condition imposed under the order dated 29-1-2007 passed in Notice of Motion No.3912 of 2006 in Appeal No.813 of 2006 in Arbitration Petition No.369 of 2006. The impugned order having been passed mainly on the basis of the said order and the alleged failure on the part of the appellant to comply with the condition therein, the same needs to be set aside. 3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, bringing to our notice the earlier order dated 19-8-2005 passed in Appeal No.422 of 2005 in Arbitration Petition No.538 of 2004 by the Division Bench, submitted that in the proceedings taken out under Section 9 of the said Act, the appellant could not get any interim relief including relief in the nature of appointment of Receiver. Considering the same and the other facts taken note of by the learned single Judge, no fault can be found with the impugned order. [3] 4. Bare perusal of the impugned order would disclose that the learned single Judge has taken note of the fact that in the earlier proceedings at the behest of the appellant in Appeal No.813 of 2006, interim relief in the nature of stay of the order passed by the learned single Judge was granted, subject to deposit of 50% of the amount due and payable under the award. The special leave petition filed in the Supreme Court, which was sought to be preferred by the appellant, was dismissed without any relief in favour of the appellant. The learned single Judge has also noted that in the adjudication proceedings before the learned Arbitrator, it was found that the suit property did not constitute a part of the partnership assets. Considering these two aspects, we find that no fault was committed by the learned single Judge in rejecting the relief in the nature of appointment of Receiver for the property in question. 5. The appointment of Receiver is not a matter of right. In order to enable the party to get Receiver appointed for a property, it is necessary for such party to satisfy the Court of the need of such appointment by disclosing the necessary facts which could reveal that in the absence of Receiver the property would be either wasted or the interest of the party would be prejudiced. Merely because the property forms part of adjudication [4] in a proceeding, that itself will not be a justification for the applicant to contend that the property should be subjected to Receiver. Added to this, as already observed by the learned single Judge, neither the conduct of the appellant nor the factual matrix which has come on record justify the appointment of Receiver for the property in question. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, even during the pendency of the arbitration proceedings, there was no Receiver appointed for the property in question. Being so, there is absolutely no justification for the appointment of Receiver for the property in question and on the same ground, there is no case made out for interference in the impugned order and the appeal is liable to be summarily rejected. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected. 6. The Receiver’s report stands disposed of in terms of the above order. (P.B.Majmudar, J.) (R.M.S.Khandeparkar, J.) sjs/A8ag621.7 sjs/A8ag621.7 sjs/A8ag621.7