Shri Satish Bhatnagar and Ors. Vs Vinod Rajkumar Bhatanagar and Ors.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

¶3

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.437 OF 2009

¶5

IN

¶6

 WRIT PETITION NO.811 OF 2006

¶7

 Shri Satish Bhatnagar & Ors. ..Applicants.
 V/s.

¶8

 Vinod Rajkumar Bhatnagar & Ors. ..Respondents.

¶9

 Mr.P.S.Dani i/b. Divya Shah Associates for
 applicants.

¶10

 Mr.E.A.Sasi for Respondent Nos. 12 and 13.

¶11

 CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J

¶12

 DATE : MARCH 30, 2009.

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

 1. Heard Counsel for the parties.

¶15

 2. By this Application, the Applicants pray that

¶16

 the royalty amount fixed by the Court Receiver in the
 sum of Rs.51,000/- per month in respect of the suit
 premises be reduced being excessive. The argument
 clearly overlooks the background in which the said
 amount has been arrived at by the Court Receiver. On
 the earlier occasion, the Petitioners/applicants
 filed Civil Application No.2559 of 2007. After
 hearing Counsel for the parties, it was ordered that
 it will be open to the Court Receiver to appoint

¶17

¶18

 interested person as an agent of the Court Receiver
 on such terms and conditions, as may be warranted.
 Pursuant to the said order, the Court Receiver
 proceeded to appoint the Applicants/Petitioners.
 That arrangement has not been challenged by any one
 else as of now. However, the Petitioners are
 questioning the royalty amount fixed by the Court
 Receiver being excessive. This argument will have to
 be turned down, having regard to the fact that it is
 the Applicants themselves who had offered to pay that
 amount by way of royalty which offer was accepted by
 the Court Receiver, as recorded in his order dated
 10th September, 2007 r/w 12th September, 2008.

¶19

 3. To get over this position, Counsel for the
 Applicants would now submit that the requirement of
 fixing royalty amount would have been only if the
 Respondent No.1(c) was to contest the claim of the
 Petitioners. However, he has given up the said
 claim. That position obtained even before 23rd July,
 2008, which fact is not in dispute. If it is so, it
 was open to the Petitioners/applicants to make that
 submission when the order dated 23rd July, 2008 was
 passed by this Court accepting the Court Receiver
 appointing interested person on such terms and
 conditions, as may be warranted. Royalty amount is

¶20

¶21

 one of the condition for appointing interested person
 as agent of the Court Receiver. Admittedly, the
 Applicants have not challenged the order dated 23rd
 July, 2008 and have allowed the same to become final.
 Moreover, as observed earlier, it is the applicants
 who have offered royalty amount at Rs.51,000/-.
 Taking any view of the matter, no indulgence can be
 shown in this Application.

¶22

 4. Counsel for the Applicants would then submit
 that in any case, property prices have fallen
 drastically and in the changed situation, the
 outgoing of Rs.51,000/- towards royalty amount would
 be excessive and unreasonable. The fact that the
 property market is fluctuating, cannot be the basis
 to keep on changing the royalty amount from time to
 time. The royalty amount has been fixed in
 September, 2008. Obviously keeping in mind all
 parameters and ground reality, as aforesaid, it is
 the Applicants who have offered amount of Rs.51,000/-
 towards monthly royalty amount in respect of the suit
 premises. In the circumstances, there is no
 substance in this Application. The same is

¶23

 dismissed.

¶24

 5. Counsel for the Applicants submits that in

¶25

¶26

 that case, Applicants may be permitted to renew

¶27

 prayer for early hearing. It is not possible to give

¶28

 fix date of hearing for this Writ Petition, which

¶29

 pertains to year 2006 only. In that, the expedited
 category of Writ Petitions which are presently on
 board for hearing pertain to year 1991. In the
 circumstances, even this request of the
 Applicants/Petitoners will have to be turned down
 while directing the Office to process the Writ

¶30

 Petition in expedited category as per its turn.

¶31

(A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)

Shri Satish Bhatnagar and Ors. v. Vinod Rajkumar Bhatanagar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Satish Bhatnagar and Ors. v. Vinod Rajkumar Bhatanagar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rupal Mayur Doshi Vs Mayur Jaswantray Doshi

Sakharam Madhavrao Bendbhar and Ors. Vs Janabai Moreshwar Mungase (Decd.)by Lrs. - Saraswati Popatrao Mungase and Ors.

Shrimant Ganpati Gulve (Decd.)by Lrs.- Rukminibai Shrimant Gulve and Ors., Vs Tanabai Gyandev Gulve (Decd.)- Mohan Gyandev Gulve and Ors.

Mahavir Feeds Vs M/S. Jivraj Raoji Gandhi

Ramkrishna Gajanan Patil Vs Bhaskar Pillai and Anr.

Babubai Chaintaman Galande (Decd.)by Lrs.- Kamalakar Chintaman Galande and Anr. Vs Maruti Manaji Barate and Ors.