Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeal Against Single Judge Order in Suit for Specific Performance and Injunction — Court Receiver Directed to Hand Over Possession to Plaintiff. Held that the Court Receiver's appointment was proper and the appeal lacked merit.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Prosecution
  • 36
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellants, who are partners of Crescent Builders, filed an appeal against an order of the learned Single Judge in Suit No.1512 of 2009. The Single Judge had appointed a Court Receiver to take possession of the suit property and hand it over to the plaintiff, Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Ltd. The appellants contended that the order was erroneous. The High Court, after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal, holding that the appointment of the Receiver was justified and the appeal lacked merit. The Court found no reason to interfere with the Single Judge's order.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Court Receiver - Appointment - Suit for specific performance - The Court appointed a Receiver to take possession of the suit property and hand it over to the plaintiff - The appellants challenged the order - Held that the appointment of Receiver was proper and the appeal was dismissed (Paras 1-3).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the order of the learned Single Judge appointing a Court Receiver and directing him to take possession of the suit property and hand it over to the plaintiff was justified.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeal is dismissed. The order of the learned Single Judge is upheld.

Law Points

  • Specific performance
  • Court Receiver
  • Injunction
  • Possession
  • Partnership firm
  • Suit for specific performance
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2015:BHC-OS:13684-DB

APPEAL (L) NO.213 OF 2015 IN COURT RECEIVER'S REPORT NO.381 OF 2014 IN SUIT NO.1512 OF 2009 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION (L) NO.743 OF 2015

2015-10-27

V. M. KANADE, DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI

2015:BHC-OS:13684-DB

Mr. Aspi Chinoy, Senior Counsel alongwith Mr. J.S. Chandnani for Appellants. Mr. Milind Sathe, Senior Counsel alongwith Mr. Nirav Barot i/b Maneksha Sethna for Respondent No.1. Mr. S.U. Kamdar, Senior Counsel alongwith Mr. R.Y. Sirsikar and Mr. Sandeep Patil for Respondent No.3. Mr. Snehal Shah alongwith Mr. Satyen Vora, Mr. A.T. Suryawanshi i/b Markand Gandhi & Co. for Flat No.1403, registered as Flat No.1503. Ms. Dhruti Kapadia, authorized representative of Flat No.1601.

Jignesh Shah, Arun Shah, Kaushik Shah, Hemal Shah, Crescent Builders

Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Ltd., Shreyas J. Shah, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, Court Receiver

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against order of learned Single Judge in a suit for specific performance and injunction.

Remedy Sought

The appellants sought to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge appointing a Court Receiver to take possession of the suit property and hand it over to the plaintiff.

Filing Reason

The appellants were aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge.

Previous Decisions

The learned Single Judge had appointed a Court Receiver to take possession of the suit property and hand it over to the plaintiff.

Issues

Whether the appointment of Court Receiver by the learned Single Judge was justified.

Submissions/Arguments

The appellants argued that the order of the learned Single Judge was erroneous. The respondents supported the order of the learned Single Judge.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found no merit in the appeal and upheld the appointment of the Court Receiver by the learned Single Judge.

Judgment Excerpts

Appellant Nos. 1 to 4 are partners of Appellant No.5 Crescent Builders. They have filed this appeal being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge

Procedural History

The suit was filed as Suit No.1512 of 2009. The learned Single Judge passed an order appointing a Court Receiver. The appellants filed Appeal (L) No.213 of 2015 against that order. The appeal was heard and dismissed on 27/10/2015.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Partnership Act, 1932:
  • Companies Act, 1913:
  • Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1988:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Territorial Jurisdiction in NI Act Case — Cheque Drawn on Bank Within Court's Jurisdiction Confers Jurisdiction Under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The court held that the place where...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeal Against Single Judge Order in Suit for Specific Performance and Injunction — Court Receiver Directed to Hand Over Possession to Plaintiff. Held that the Court Receiver's appointment was proper and the appeal lacke...