IN

IN

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY

ORDINARY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

CHAMBER

CHAMBER

CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1296 OF 2007

SUMMONS NO.1296 OF 2007

SUMMONS NO.1296 OF 2007

IN

IN

IN

COURT

COURT

COURT RECEIVER’S REPORT

RECEIVER’S REPORT

RECEIVER’S REPORT

IN

IN

IN

ARBITRATION

ARBITRATION

ARBITRATION PETITION NO.470 OF 2002

PETITION NO.470 OF 2002

PETITION NO.470 OF 2002

Lalitkumar Vanmalidas Sanghavi

...Petitioner

Versus

Dharamdas Vanmalidas Sanghavi & Ors.

...Respondents

And

Dharamdas V. Sanghavi

...Applicant

Versus

The Court Receiver

...Respondent

Shri Lalitkumar V. Sanghavi, Petitioner in person

present.

Shri K.P.Anilkumar for the Applicant.

Shri D.V.Devkar, Ist Assistant to Court Receiver.

CORAM

CORAM

CORAM : ABHAY S.OKA, J.

: ABHAY S.OKA, J.

: ABHAY S.OKA, J.

DATED

DATED

DATED : AUGUST 31, 2007.

: AUGUST 31, 2007.

: AUGUST 31, 2007.

P.C.:

P.C.:

P.C.:

1.

The Chamber Summons has been taken out by the

first Respondent in Arbitration Petition No.470 of 2002.

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the first

Respondent (Applicant) in support of Chamber Summons.

The Petitioner in the Arbitration Petition appears in

person for opposing the Chamber Summons.

2.

The learned counsel for the first Respondent

submitted that the royalty fixed by the 1st Assistant to

the Court Receiver is exorbitant. He submitted that it

is impossible for the first Respondent to pay such

royalty in view of reasons set out in paragraph Nos.18

... 2 ...

and 19 of the affidavit in support. He submitted that

before the Division Bench in Appeal Lodging No.295 of

2007, parties agreed to reduce the adhoc royalty from

Rs.15,000/- to Rs.8,000/-. He, therefore, submitted

that the royalty deserves to be reduced to Rs.8,000/-

per month. He submitted that the submission of the

Advocate for the first Respondent recorded by the 1st

Assistant to the Court Receiver in his order dated 25th

July, 2007 (on page No.24 of the affidavit in support)

is not correct and infact no such submission was made.

3.

The Petitioner appearing in person opposed the

Chamber Summons. He submitted that as the first

Respondent did not substantiate his case that the value

of the flat was not more than Rs.35,00,000/-, the 1st

Assistant to the Court Receiver was justified in taking

the aid of the rates of the flats published in Times

Property for fixing the royalty. He submitted that no

interference is called for in the order passed by the

1st Assistant to the Court Receiver. He stated that the

first Respondent is not paying the royalty regularly.

4.

I have considered the submissions. The first

Respondent was ordered to be appointed as agent of the

Court Receiver by order dated 22nd January, 2007 passed

by this Court in Misc.Petition No.11 of 2007 taken out

... 3 ...

in Arbitration Petition No.470 of 2002. The agency was

subject to payment of monthly royalty and compliance

with other usual conditions. The Court Receiver was

directed to fix the royalty. By way of adhoc royalty,

the first Respondent was directed to pay a sum of

Rs.15,000/- per month from 01st November, 2002. In so

far as order appointing the receiver is concerned, the

same has attained finality. The order directing the

first Respondent to pay monthly royalty and furnish

security has also attained finality. By order dated

27th April, 2007 the Division Bench reduced the adhoc

royalty from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.8,000/-. Infact, the

Division Bench has recorded an undertaking of the first

Respondent to pay royalty amount as may be decided by

the Court Receiver.

5.

The first Respondent cannot rely upon the

quantification of the royalty by Division Bench as it

was only an adhoc royalty pending th