Case Note & Summary
The dispute arises out of a family property and business conflict between the plaintiff, Majid Ahmedbhai Oomerbhoy, and the defendants, including Rashid Sattar Oomerbhoy, concerning properties and the firm Ahmed Oomerbhoy Pvt. Ltd. In Suit No.4913 of 2000, the Court Receiver was appointed over certain properties. By order dated 25th June 2003, the Court Receiver fixed royalty at Rs. 1,50,000/- per month for the use of one of the properties by defendant no.1. The plaintiff filed Chamber Summons No.1336 of 2003 seeking enhancement of the royalty, while defendant no.1 filed Chamber Summons No.1488 of 2003 seeking reduction. Both parties challenged the same order. The court considered the submissions and the material before the Receiver. The plaintiff argued that the royalty should be higher based on market rates, while defendant no.1 contended that the property was in disrepair and the business was not profitable. The court noted that the Receiver had considered the rival contentions and passed a reasoned order. The court held that the Receiver's order was just and proper and that neither party had made out a case for interference. Both Chamber Summons were dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Court Receiver - Royalty Fixation - Order 40 Rule 1 CPC - Challenge to order of Court Receiver fixing royalty - Both plaintiff and defendant sought variation - Court held that the Receiver's order was just and proper, based on material on record, and no interference was warranted - Held that the party challenging the Receiver's order must show that the order is perverse or based on no material (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Court Receiver's order dated 25th June 2003 fixing royalty at Rs. 1,50,000/- per month for the use of the property by defendant no.1 should be enhanced or reduced.
Final Decision
Both Chamber Summons No.1336 of 2003 and Chamber Summons No.1488 of 2003 are dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Court Receiver's powers
- Royalty fixation
- Interference with Receiver's order
- Burden of proof on party challenging Receiver's order
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (03) 19
Chamber Summons No.1336 of 2003 in Suit No.4913 of 2000 with Chamber Summons No.1488 of 2003 in Suit No.4913 of 2000
Mr. Anil Kumar with Prakash Shinde i/b M.M. Dhruva & Co. for the plaintiffs; Mr. Shyam Diwan with Prakash Shinde for plaintiffs; Mr. Jai Chinai with Sanjay Jain i/b Mr. Ranchoddas for Defendant no.1; Mr. R.V. Pai i/b A.N. Makhijani; Mr. R.V. Pai i/b Ms. Neeta P. Karnik; Mr. Sanjay Jain with Kalpesh Joshi i/b Malvi Ranchoddas & Co.; Mr. Mukul Taly i/b S. Mohd. Bhai & Co.; Mr. A.K. Pradhan C.A. for Ct. Receiver; Mr. M.V. Deshmukh Ct. Receiver present
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Chamber Summons challenging the order of the Court Receiver fixing royalty for use of property in a pending suit.
Remedy Sought
Plaintiff sought enhancement of royalty; defendant no.1 sought reduction of royalty.
Filing Reason
Dissatisfaction with the Court Receiver's order dated 25th June 2003 fixing royalty at Rs. 1,50,000/- per month.
Previous Decisions
Court Receiver passed order on 25th June 2003 fixing royalty at Rs. 1,50,000/- per month.
Issues
Whether the Court Receiver's order fixing royalty at Rs. 1,50,000/- per month should be enhanced or reduced.
Submissions/Arguments
Plaintiff argued that the royalty should be enhanced based on market rates.
Defendant no.1 argued that the property is in disrepair and business is not profitable, so royalty should be reduced.
Ratio Decidendi
The Court Receiver's order fixing royalty is a quasi-judicial order and should not be interfered with unless it is perverse or based on no material. The Receiver had considered the rival contentions and passed a reasoned order. The party challenging the order must show that the order is unjust or improper.
Judgment Excerpts
Both these Chamber Summons are challenging the order passed by the Court Receiver, High Court, Mumbai on 25th June 2003.
The Chamber Summons taken out by the plaintiff being Chamber Summons 1336 of 2003 seeks enhancement of the Royalty amount fixed by the Court Receiver under the impugned order whereas the Chamber Summons dated 1488 of 2003 initiated by the defendant no.1 who is in possession of one of the properties seeks to reduce the royalty amount fixed by the Court Receiver.
Procedural History
Suit No.4913 of 2000 was filed by the plaintiff. The Court Receiver was appointed over certain properties. On 25th June 2003, the Court Receiver passed an order fixing royalty at Rs. 1,50,000/- per month. The plaintiff filed Chamber Summons No.1336 of 2003 seeking enhancement, and defendant no.1 filed Chamber Summons No.1488 of 2003 seeking reduction. Both were heard together and dismissed by this judgment.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 40 Rule 1
