1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY & ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3037 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO. 2122 OF 2009 Nafis Akhtar Mohammed Moosa Khan. ... Plaintiff. V/s. Raees Akhtar Khan & Ors. ... Defendants. Mr. Q. M. Ashfag for the Plaintiff. Mr. Kamalesh Mali for Defendant No.4. Defendant No.1 present in person. Mr. G.G. Ketkar, 1st Asstt. to Court Receiver present. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATED : 09th OCTOBER 2009. P.C. :- On 4th September 2009, a detailed order was passed by this Court. The Receiver was already appointed which appointment continued until the proceedings before the Division Bench were disposed off. After hearing parties, this Court, on 4th September 2009 appointed the Court Receiver, High Court Bombay as a Receiver of the immovable property mentioned in prayer clause (a) of the plaint. This was by consent of parties. By further consent, it was recorded that the Receiver can invite bids from the parties for appointment as an Agent. The Court Receiver has submitted his report dated 9th October 2009. He has referred to a Meeting dated 2 7th October 2009 at which parties and Advocates were present. He gave them opportunity to place their bids for appointment as his Agent. The business is of Motor Training School. Accordingly, the details of the bids which have been submitted are set out in the report and finally, it is stated that Plaintiff No.1 gave a bid of Rs.37,000/- per month for being appointed as an Agent. This bid was not matched despite opportunities to the others. 2. The request now made is to accept the bid and dispose off the Motion. 3. However, it is urged on behalf of Defendant No.4 that in the bidding which took place before the Receiver, the Plaintiff No.1 placed an offer only of Rs.35,000/- and whereas Plaintiff No.2 placed a bid at Rs.38,000/- This was matched by Defendant Nos.1 and 2. Even Defendant No.4 gave his independent offer. 4. In my view, the report fairly indicates as to how the bidding took place and it is not possible to accept the contention of Mr. Mali, learned Advocate appearing for Defendant No.4 that Defendant No.4 has given a bid more than the bid submitted by Defendant No.2. To my mind, the Receiver has acted fairly and given ample opportunities to parties to bid. After the opportunity to enhance was also given, finally, the highest offer/bid is of Plaintiff No.1. 3 5. To my mind, considering the contents of the report and the earlier consent order, the Motion can be made absolute by confirming the appointment of a Court Receiver and further, directing that Plaintiff No.1 shall be appointed by the Receiver as his Agent at the monthly royalty/compensation of Rs. 39,000/- per month and subject to his Executing an Agency agreement within a period of four weeks from today. 6. Needless to state that in the event, there is a default in payment or even entering into an agency agreement, the Receiver can seek fresh directions from the Court. The Motion is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.)