High Court Orders Removal of Unauthorized Structures and Possession Transfer. Court directed the removal of unauthorized structures and possession transfer upon payment of decretal amount and security charges.

High Court: Bombay High Court
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involved a report by the Court Receiver concerning unauthorized structures on the suit premises in Suit No.771 of 1976. The plaintiff, I.C.D.I. Ltd., sought action against the defendants, Khanderao R. Shivalkar and others, regarding these structures. The court found that unauthorized structures existed on the premises and directed respondents Nos. 2 to 25 to pay a balance decretal amount of Rs.6,04,763 and security charges of Rs.7,73,574.37. Upon payment, the respondents were to provide a receipt to the Court Receiver, who would then notify the Bombay Municipal Corporation to remove the unauthorized structures. Additionally, the court noted that unauthorized structures from plot No.159 had already been removed, and possession of that plot was to be handed over to the respondents. The Court Receiver was discharged from his duties without the need for passing accounts after payment of his costs. The report was disposed of accordingly.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Court Receiver's Powers - Removal of Unauthorized Structures - Court Receiver's Report No.51 of 2007 - Court directed the removal of unauthorized structures from the suit premises and ordered possession to be handed over to the respondents upon payment of the decretal amount and security charges. Held that the Court Receiver shall inform the municipal corporation for removal and transfer possession accordingly (Paras 1-3).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the unauthorized structures on the suit premises should be removed and possession transferred to the respondents.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court ordered the removal of unauthorized structures and directed the Court Receiver to hand over possession of the suit plots to the respondents upon payment of the required amounts.

Law Points

  • Court Receiver's authority
  • unauthorized structures
  • possession transfer
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

Court Receiver's Report No.51 of 2007 in Suit No.771 of 1976

2007-03-23

Smt.R.S. Dalvi

Mr.D.B. Sawant, Mr.D.V.Deokar

I.C.D.I. Ltd.

Khanderao R. Shivalkar & ors.

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

Nature of Litigation

Civil litigation regarding unauthorized structures on suit premises.

Remedy Sought

Plaintiff sought removal of unauthorized structures and possession transfer.

Filing Reason

Presence of unauthorized structures on the suit premises.

Issues

Removal of unauthorized structures Transfer of possession

Submissions/Arguments

Respondents directed to pay decretal amount and security charges Court Receiver to facilitate removal of structures and transfer of possession

Ratio Decidendi

The court emphasized the authority of the Court Receiver to manage the removal of unauthorized structures and ensure compliance with payment obligations before transferring possession.

Judgment Excerpts

There are certain unauthorised structures on the suit premises. The Court Receiver shall hand over possession of plot No.159 to Respondent Nos.2 to 25. The Court Receiver Report is disposed of accordingly.

Procedural History

The Court Receiver submitted a report regarding unauthorized structures, leading to the court's directives for payment and possession transfer.

Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Pre-emption Case Due to Estoppel Against Pre-emptor's Claim. Estoppel Applied as Respondent's Conduct Demonstrated Inequity in Asserting Pre-emption Rights.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Dowry Case Regarding Examination of Supplementary Witnesses. The court found that the High Court's restriction on the filing of a supplementary list of witnesses was incorrect, affirming the Magistrate's discretion unde...