Back
SANDEEP V. MARNE
Manilal Premji Gala – Appellant
Versus
Eruch Boman Khaver – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sandeep V. Marne, J.
A. The Challenge
These Appeals are filed challenging the order dated 17 May 2016 passed by the City Civil Court allowing Notice of Motion No. 4443 of 2015 filed by the Plaintiff No.2 in terms of prayer clauses (d) and (e). The City Civil Court has proceeded to reject Notice of Motion No.4970 of 2015 filed by the heirs of Defendant No.1. The order dated 17 May 2016 has been corrected by the City Civil Court by order dated 19 July 2016. The issue before the City Civil Court was about appointment of agent of Court Receiver in respect of business and property of the partnership firm. The net result of the impugned orders passed by the City Civil Court is that Notice of Motion No.4443 of 2015 filed by Plaintiff No.2 is allowed which contemplates Court Receiver of this Court taking back the possession of business and properties of the partnership firm and appointment of Plaintiff No.2 as the agent of the Court Receiver in respect thereof. Notice of Motion No.4970 of 2015 filed by legal heirs of Defendant No.1 for appointment of Manoj Manilal Gala (Defend
The court upheld the long-standing agency arrangement for business management despite partnership dissolution, emphasizing the need for continuity in operations during ongoing litigation.
The court upheld the long-standing arrangement of the Gala family conducting the partnership business, emphasizing stability during litigation and addressing financial impacts due to COVID-19 on roya....
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....
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 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 main legal point established in the judgment is that the plaintiff's valuation of the suit should not be whimsical or arbitrary, especially in cases involving immovable property. The court emphas....
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....
The Defendant was not a protected licensee under the Bombay Rent Act, and the Civil Court had jurisdiction to adjudicate the recovery of business and machinery, necessitating remand for subsequent ev....
Defendants' unauthorized occupation of property post-termination of license leads to entitlement of the plaintiff for recovery of possession and constitutes grounds for inquiry into mesne profits.
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
