Back
G. S. PATEL, M. G. SEWLIKAR
Mahendra Mangruram Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Rajdai Nandlal Shaw – Respondent
JUDGMENT
G.S.PATEL, J. - The Appeal is directed against an interim order dtd. 26/11/2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Notice of Motion No.1189 of 2014. In that Notice of Motion the Plaintif sought an injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd Defendants from parting with possession and also sought the appointment of a Court Receiver to take physical possession of the suit premises, a bhel puri or chana kurmura vending shop.
2. After hearing both sides and considering the material on record, the learned Single Judge appointed the Court Receiver, directed the Receiver to take physical possession of the shop in question and then directed the Receiver to appoint the Plaintif as the Receiver's agent without security. The Receiver was to fx royalty which was to be deposited in Court and then invested.
3. Mr Railkar appears for the Appellants, original Defendants Nos. 1 and 2. He is not aggrieved by a previous order of injunction earlier granted by this Court. In any case, that injunction has been confrmed by Division Bench of this Court in Appeal on 9/12/2019. What aggrieves the Appellants is the order appointing the Court Receiver with an order to take possession from
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to balance the legal principles regarding the appointment of a receiver, permissive possession, and the circumstances under which possessi....
The court ruled that a trial court may appoint a receiver in a suit for injunction to prevent potential chaos, especially when possession claims are contested, without requiring a specific applicatio....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the City Civil Court had no authority in law to entertain an application in a disposed of suit against which an appeal had already been pendin....
Appointment of a receiver requires a judicious exercise of discretion; failure to adhere to procedural fairness resulted in setting aside the trial court's order.
The court upheld the appointment of a Receiver to protect religious property, affirming the right to worship and correcting procedural omissions under inherent powers.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the suit building remained custodia legis and the possession of the Court Receiver was prima facie violated. The Court provided an opportunity....
The court clarified that a receiver can only be appointed if there is a prima facie case, immediate danger, and it does not deprive the defendant of possession.
A suit for injunction simplicitor is not maintainable without a declaration of ownership, especially when the plaintiff admits that part of the property is in the possession of the defendants.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
