JUDGMENT - Smt. K.K. BAAM, J.:---This Notice of Motion has been taken out by the applicants, who claim an interest in respect of the machinery described in the schedule annexed to the Notice of Motion, which, according to the applicants, is listed in the Court Receiver's inventory on page 151 at Serial No. 13, praying that the respondent be directed to take physical possession of the machinery described in the schedule to the Notice of Motion and hand over the same to the applicants; that the respondents and or defendant No. 1 be directed to pay to the applicants the arrears of lease rentals and further lease rentals and for ad-interim reliefs. The applicants have also sought permission to commence examination pro interesse suo. 2.So far as the relief under prayer Clause (b) is concerned, the applicants would not be entitled to the same by virtue of the fact that defendant No. 1 has adopted the proceedings under B.I.F.R. and as per the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated February 19, 1998 passed in a Notice of Motion in Appeal No. 1017 of 1997 in Chamber Summons No. 1250 of 1997 in Suit No. 3287 of 1997 no proceedings can be proceeded further against respondent Company therein for it is observed by the Division Bench in the said order as follows : "Inquiry is pending within the meaning of section 22(1) of the said Act and if that be so, the proceedings for appointment of a receiver cannot be proceeded with further except with the consent of the board. Accordingly we accept the contention of respondent No. 1 and direct that without the permission of the B.I.F.R. those proceedings cannot be proceeded any further, against the respondent No. 1 Company." 3.By the present notice of motion the applicants have also sought a direction that the Court Receiver to pay to the applicants the amounts under the lease rentals and future rentals. So far as the respondent Receiver is concerned, in view of the fact that the respondent-Receiver has not entered into any agency agreement with the 1st defendants, no royalty has been fixed and the Court Receiver has not recovered any amount. In view of the same, so far as the applicants are concerned the applicants are not entitled to the relief in terms of prayer (b). In view of the same, so far as the applicants are concerned the applicants are not entitled to the relief in terms of prayer (b). 4.The question that arises for consideration is as to whether the applicants are entitled to the reliefs in terms of prayer Clause (a) by which they have sought a direction to the Court Receiver to take physical possession of the machinery described in the schedule to the Notice of Motion and hand the same over to the applicants. The applicants, in support of their case, have contended that under the lease agreements machinery described in the schedule annexed to the present Notice of Motion taken out by the applicants herein was leased to the 1st defendant. So far as defendant No. 1 is concerned, they have not paid the amount and hence the lease has been terminated and the relief has been sought. It is the case of the applicants that the plaintiffs ICICI have filed the present suit against defendant No. 1 for the recovery of the amounts as also for a declaration that the 1st defendants have hypothecated the, movables, bankers, goods properties etc. described in Exhibits C and D to the plaint and have sought relief of appointment of the Court Receiver and injunction. 5.The Court Receiver was appointed Receiver of the properties by order dated September 29, 1997. The Receiver was directed to appoint defendants Nos. 1 to 4 as his agent on such terms and conditions as the Receiver may deem fit and proper. 6.In the present Notice of Motion taken out by the applicants herein, though the plaintiffs have been served, the plaintiffs have not filed any affidavit but Shri S.R. Tilokchandani, who appears on behalf of the plaintiffs, states across the bar, that no charge or security has been created in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of the machinery described in the schedule annexed to the present Notice of Motion taken out by the applicants herein and, therefore, the said machinery falls outside the scope of the documents at Exhibit C. Further, it was also stated on behalf of the plaintiffs that if the applicants herein are able to prove that this property belongs to the applicants, and if the applicants establish their ownership in respect thereof, in that case the plaintiffs have no objection to the said property being handed over to the applicants. 7.Therefore, so far as the present Notice of Motion is concerned, if the plaintiffs do not have any charge or the security in respect of the equipments claimed by the applicants in their favour, it cannot be contended on behalf of the applicants that the Receiver stand appointed in respect of this equipment as the same is outside the scope of Exhibit C. If that be so, the remedy open to the applicants would be to adopt appropriate proceedings and seek necessary reliefs. 8.Further, so far as the lease equipment is concerned, from the arguments advanced on behalf of the defendants and the applicants herein and after hearing the Court Receiver, though it is contended on behalf of the applicants that they have a paramount title in respect of this equipment, a perusal of the schedule attached to the present Notice of Motion which the applicants herein have taken out, reveals that the description of the property in the said schedule does not tally with the equipment mentioned at Serial No. 13, page No. 151 of the inventory prepared by the Court Receiver. Though the Court Receiver has stated that the Court Receiver has taken charge of all the machinery and articles and equipments mentioned in the inventory, so far as the lease equipment is concerned, in respect of defendant No. 1's factory at Bhiwandi, it is submitted on behalf of the Court Receiver and it is recorded in the inventory prepared by the Court Receiver that identification of some equipments acquired on lease basis was not possible due to lack of supporting documentation. 9.It is contended on behalf of the applicants herein that the lease equipment at Serial No. 13 at page 151 of the inventory prepared by the Receiver, description of which is to the effect "5 MVA 6.6 K.V.D.G. Set Engine Sr. No. 6457, and 6548 with Duel fuel and Alarm System, LSD/HFO, make "Wartsila", is the equipment which has been leased by the applicants. The documents produced by the applicants at this stage fail to support this contention as in the documents produced, the description is not referred to and, therefore, at this stage, I find it difficult to accept the contention of the applicants that the machinery at Serial No. 13 on page 151 of the inventory prepared by the Court Receiver is of the ownership of the applicants herein. So far as this machinery is concerned, the applicants are not in a position to identify the property as the description of the machinery as set out in the schedule to the present Notice of Motion taken out by the applicants does not tally with the description of the machinery set out at Serial No. 13 at page 151 of the inventory prepared by the Court Receiver. Therefore, in view of the fact that the property is not correctly described and identified, at this stage, the applicants would not be entitled to the reliefs prayed for. 10.Further, it is urged on behalf of the defendant that leave under Clause XII of the Letters Patent has been revoked. Though the matter was carried in appeal, the order has been stayed and a reference is also made to an order of the Division Bench whereby the proceedings in this suit have been stayed by virtue of the fact that the matter has been referred to B.I.F.R. If at all the applicants have any right, title and interest in respect of the suit property, the applicants cannot, by virtue of the present Notice of Motion, seek an order and take possession of the property adopting a short circuit proceedings without establishing their title or adopting appropriate proceedings for the same. 11.On behalf of the applicants reliance has been placed on a ruling in the case of (A.K. Roy v. State of W.B.)1, 66 C.W.N. 747. So far as this ruling is concerned, the same does not apply to the facts of the present case inasmuch as in the case under reference a party who had made application was a person to whom Receiver owed money. When he was appointed as Receiver, he had entered into the liabilities with the third parties and it was, therefore, an application was made by the third party to recover dues from the Receiver. In the instant case, so far as the applicants are concerned, the said ruling does not apply as it is not the case of the applicants herein that they are entitled to recover the dues from the Receiver but it is the case of the applicants that the property was leased to defendant No. 1 and that the lease has been terminated on account of the fact that defendant No. 1 has not paid lease rentals. Merely because the property is the subject matter of this proceedings, so far as the applicants are concerned, I am of the opinion that the applicants cannot, by way of this application, seek possession of the machinery without filing appropriate proceedings. 12.On behalf of the applicants, reliance has also been placed on a ruling in (Sridhar v. Nilmoni)2, A.I.R. 1925 Calcutta 681 wherein it has been observed as follows :-- "When a Receiver is in possession of property under the process or authority of the Court, his possession is not to be disturbed, even by an ejectment under an adverse title without the leave of the Court, for the Receiver's possession is deemed to be the possession of the Court and the Court will not permit itself to be made a suitor in a Court of law. The proper and usual mode to be adopted under such circumstances is for the party claiming an adverse interest to apply to the Court to be permitted to come in and be examined pro interesse suo" 13.The aforesaid ruling also does not apply to the facts of the present case as so far as the equipment in the present case is concerned, the question that arises for consideration is as to whether the applicants have a title to the said equipment and whether the equipment is identified by the applicant as being the subject matter of the lease agreement and in the instant case by virtue of the fact that the equipment cannot be identified as the description set out in the Schedule annexed to the present Notice of Motion is different than the one given in the Receiver's inventory. Therefore, the applicants, by way of these proceedings, cannot seek possession of the equipment as in the instant case the applicants are required to identify the equipment and for that purpose the applicants cannot by virtue of the present notice of motion, seek recourse to get the possession of the equipment from the Court Receiver as the Receiver has been appointed to protect the property. So far as the present application is concerned, I am of the opinion that the same is not maintainable and the applicants are not entitled to any relief prayed for. So far as the present application is concerned, I am of the opinion that the same is not maintainable and the applicants are not entitled to any relief prayed for. 14.It has also been urged on behalf of defendant No. 1 that so far as the present application is concerned, this Court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the same, as according to the 1st defendant, it is the Delhi High Court, which has the jurisdiction and it is on this basis and arguments that the leave under Clause XII was revoked. 15.Further, it is the case of the applicants that Clause 24 of the agreement provides that in the event of there being any dispute the matter is required to be referred to the arbitration. So far as this aspect of the matter is concerned, it is urged on behalf of the defendants that the applicants have not sought any recourse to the arbitration proceedings but have filed the present application and have tried to take possession of the property which they are not able to identify or describe. 16.Hence so far as the present Notice of Motion taken out by applicants is concerned, the same is not maintainable and stands dismissed. 17.The applicants are at liberty to adopt such proceedings as are advised and permissible under the law to protect their rights in respect of the equipment under reference. Leave granted to the applicants to implead the Receiver in the proceedings which the applicants may take out. Certified copy expedited. Application dismissed.