1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. REVIEW PETITION NO.22 OF 2008 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.66 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO.1355 OF 1982 M/s. Vijay Stores ..Petitioner. Vs. 1(a) Manish Morarji Palan and others ..Respondents. (Orig. Plaintiffs) and 1(a) Rajesh Gordhandas Palan and others ..Respondents. (Orig.Defendants) Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay. ..Respondent. ..... Mr. Shailesh Shah with Mr. Swapnil Bagur i/b M/s. Vinod Mistry & Co. for the Petitioner. Ms. M.V. Thakkar with Mr. R.V. Thakkar for Respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(c). .... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 4th August, 2008. P.C. : 1. The present order will govern the Review Petition which has been taken out for seeking review of an order dated 28th January, 2008. The order which is sought to be reviewed came to be passed on a Chamber Summons taken out by the Review Petitioner herein for condoning the delay in the payment of royalty 2 for the month of December 2007 and for a direction to the Receiver to accept royalty which was paid under cover of a letter dated 8th January, 2008 for the months of December 2007 and January 2008. 2. As noted by this Court in the order of 28th January, 2008, there were numerous defaults in the payment of royalty by the Review Petitioner who had been appointed as agent of the Court Receiver. It is in this background that a Motion was taken out for a direction to the Court Receiver to take possession of the shop premises in respect of which the Review Petitioner was appointed as agent. A consensual arrangement was entered into which was reflected in the order of this Court dated 25th October, 2007. Parties agreed that the royalty which was until then Rs.901/- per month was to stand enhanced to Rs.20,000/- per month. The Review Petitioner was to pay the amount of royalty by the tenth of each succeeding month. In the event of any single default in the payment of royalty, the agency agreement was to stand cancelled. Parties agreed to such a stipulation obviously in the light of the fact that there was a series of defaults in the past which required the imposition of a strict condition. 3 3. On behalf of the Review Petitioner it has been urged that by the order of this Court dated 25th October, 2007 the amount of monthly royalty was to be paid on or before the tenth day of each succeeding month and that consequently the royalty for the month of December 2007 was not due and payable until 10th January, 2008. Hence, it has been submitted that there was no default in the payment of royalty for the month of December 2007. The submission cannot be accepted. The order of this Court reflects a consensual arrangement between the parties. Under the order the Review Petitioner was to stand appointed as agent subject to the payment of the enhanced royalty of Rs.20,000/- per month and payment of royalty was to be made on or before the tenth day of each succeeding month. The order was passed on 25th October, 2007. The royalty for the period between 25th October, 2007 and 24th November, 2007 therefore fell due on 10th November, 2007. In fact, that is how the order was construed by the Review Petitioner since the payment for the month of November 2007 was made by a letter dated 5th November, 2007. The contention that the payment for the period between 25th November 2007 and 24th December, 2007 was not due until 10th January, 2008 cannot be accepted. 4 For one thing, as noted by this Court in the order dated 28th January, 2008 which is sought to be reviewed, the contention of the Review Petitioner was that it was under the impression that the three months advance royalty which had been deposited would cover the payment of royalty until January 2008. As observed by this Court, if that were to be so, there was no reason for the Review Petitioner to pay the royalty on 5th November, 2007. It is in this context that the Court found that the plea of the Review Petitioner was lacking in bonafides. Secondly, there was absolutely no reason or justification to read the order of the Court dated 25th October, 2007 as giving to the Review Petitioner, who had already been in default, a grace period of 40 days to pay the royalty due for every month. When the order of the Court provided in paragraph 4 that the amount of royalty shall be paid by the tenth of each succeeding month, that would only mean on or before the tenth of November 2007 and thereafter, on or before the tenth day of each succeeding month. That was how the arrangement between the parties had operated. Even in the past the terms and conditions which applied during the earlier agency were to the same effect (Exhibit C to the affidavit in reply) and the draft terms and conditions which were forwarded by the Review Petitioner's 5 advocate (Exhibit H to the Review Petition) make a similar provision. The submissions therefore do not make out any ground for review and lack in substance. 4. Before concluding it would be appropriate to record that the Review Petitioner has been permitted to proceed on the basis of denials in respect of the affidavit in reply which was served on 10th July, 2008. 5. In these circumstances, the order of the Court does not suffer from any error apparent. The attention of the Court has also been drawn to the fact that in compliance with the order the Review Petitioner has already handed over possession to the Court Receiver. There is therefore no merit in the Review Petition which is accordingly dismissed. *****