Case Note & Summary
The Bombay High Court was hearing Criminal Application No. 5496 of 2004 in connection with Criminal Application No. 268 of 2004. The applicant, Sameer Abubakar Lakhani, appeared in person. The court had directed the Receiver's office to submit a valuation report, which was submitted. However, it appeared that after the last report of the valuer was submitted, thefts were committed at the concerned property. The court noted that the property was not guarded. The court questioned who was responsible for this. The applicant stated that he had already filed an affidavit in this connection and had lodged complaints. The court directed the Receiver's office to submit a detailed note by the next date.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Property Protection - Receiver's Responsibility - Court's Supervisory Jurisdiction - The court questioned who is responsible for thefts at the property after the last valuation report, noting the property was unguarded and the applicant had filed an affidavit and complaints. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Who is responsible for thefts committed at the property after the last valuation report was submitted?
Final Decision
Receiver's office directed to submit a detailed note by the next date.
Law Points
- Responsibility for property protection
- Court's supervisory jurisdiction over receivers
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (07) 101
Criminal Application No. 5496 of 2004 in Criminal Application No. 268 of 2004
Sameer A. Lakhani (applicant-in-person), Mr. D.S. Mhaispurkar (Addl. PP), Mr. D.R. Dhurat (1st Asstt. to Court Receiver)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal application regarding property valuation and thefts
Remedy Sought
Direction to Receiver to submit detailed note and address thefts
Filing Reason
Thefts committed at the property after valuation report was submitted
Previous Decisions
Court had directed valuation report to be submitted by Receiver's office
Issues
Who is responsible for thefts at the property after the last valuation report?
Submissions/Arguments
Applicant states he has filed affidavit and lodged complaints
Ratio Decidendi
The court has supervisory jurisdiction over receivers and can direct them to submit reports and address issues like thefts at properties under their oversight.
Judgment Excerpts
The question is who is responsible for this.
It appears that after the last report of the valuer was submitted before this court, there are thefts committed at the concerned property.
Procedural History
The court had earlier directed the Receiver's office to submit a valuation report. The report was submitted. Subsequently, thefts occurred at the property. The court now questions responsibility and directs a detailed note.
