High Court Of Calcutta
A. K. GANGULY
STP LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
NIRMALJIT SINGH HOON - Respondent
C. S. 1034 Of 1987
Decided On : 09/19/2001
RECEIVERSHIP - POSSESSION - INTERFERENCE - POLICE ASSISTANCE: In a suit for recovery of vacant and peaceful possession of a flat, a Receiver was appointed to take symbolical possession of the said premises. The Receiver found one Laxman Das Walia in exclusive possession of the flat and took symbolical possession. Subsequently, it was found that the possession of the flat had been altered by the alleged induction of persons who were not there when the symbolically possession was taken by the Receiver. The Court held that the possession of the Receiver is the possession of the Court and such possession cannot be disturbed without the leave of the Court. The Court further held that in such a situation, the Court should not hold its hands back just because the matter is at an ad interim stage and may, and if necessary, should pass mandatory order at an ad interim stage to prevent the alteration of the position which prevailed at the time the Receiver took symbolical possession.
Fact of the Case:
In a suit for recovery of vacant and peaceful possession of a flat, a Receiver was appointed to take symbolical possession of the said premises. The Receiver found one Laxman Das Walia in exclusive possession of the flat and took symbolical possession. Subsequently, it was found that the possession of the flat had been altered by the alleged induction of persons who were not there when the symbolically possession was taken by the Receiver.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the possession of the Receiver is the possession of the Court and such possession cannot be disturbed without the leave of the Court. The Court further held that in such a situation, the Court should not hold its hands back just because the matter is at an ad interim stage and may, and if necessary, should pass mandatory order at an ad interim stage to prevent the alteration of the position which prevailed at the time the Receiver took symbolical possession.
Issues: Whether the Court should hold its hands back just because the matter is at an ad interim stage when the possession of the Receiver is disturbed.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on the principles laid down in the case of Nandan Pictures Ltd. v. Art Pictures Ltd. and Others, reported in 1956 Calcutta 428, which held that a mandatory injunction can be granted at an interlocutory stage where the defendant alters the factual basis upon which the plaintiff claimed his relief.
Final Decision: The Court directed the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta, as well as the Officer-In-Charge, Park Street Police Station, to provide necessary police assistance to the Receiver to enable the Receiver to take actual physical possession of the said premises.
( 1 ) THIS application was assigned before me by the Hon'ble The Chief Justice by an order dated 19. 07. 2001.
( 2 ) THIS application has been filed with a prayer for directing the Commissioner of Police as well as Officer-in-Charge, Park Street Police Station to provide police help to enable the Receiver to take actual physical possession of the suit premises being Flat No. 16, 33 and 34 Park Mansion of premises No. 57a, Park Street, Calcutta-700 016 [hereinafter referred to as the said premises].
( 3 ) IN order to properly appreciate the controversies involved in this case, a few facts are required to be stated.
( 4 ) THE suit out of which this application arises was filed in 1987 by the plaintiff/petitioner for recovery of vacant and peaceful possession of the said premises.
( 5 ) IN the said suit an application was filed for appointment of a Receiver and on such petition a learned Judge of this Court by an order dated 17th September, 1987 appointed Mr. Debasis Das, an advocate, the Receiver to take symbolic possession of the said premises in terms of prayer 'a' of the petition. There was also an interim order in terms of prayer 'b' of the petition. Prayers (a) and (b) in terms of which the order was passed are set out below: (A)a Special Officer and/or a Receiver be appointed to take symbolic possession of the said flat described in annexure "a" of the petition with a further direction to make an inventory of the moveable property in the said flat and make a report to this Hon'ble Court as to the present state, condition and position of the said flat. (b)injunction restraining the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 from in any way transferring or otherwise parting with possession or creating any third-party interest in the said flat. "
( 6 ) ON being appointed Receiver, the learned advocate, Mr. Debasish Das visited the said premises and found one Laxman Das Walia in exclusive possession of the flat and the Receiver took symbolical possession of the said premises. In this connection, reference may be made to the report of the Receiver which was filed in the proceeding. From the said report, it is clear that one Laxman Das Walia, the original defendant No. 2 was in exclusive possession on the said premises. From the said report, it does not appear that the defendant No. 1 was in occupation of the said premises. The Receiver was informed by the defendant No. 2 that the whereabouts of defendant No. 1 are not known to defendant No. 2 who also informed the Receiver that most of the furniture and fixtures in the said flat including various movables were purchased by defendant No. 2 from defendant No. 1. The Receiver's report also showed that he took symbolic possession of the said premises and defendant No. 2 was informed of the same. According to the said report, it appeared that the flat consists of two bedrooms, one big hall, two verandahs, one kitchen, one storeroom and three toilets. The Receiver prepared an inventory in terms of the order of the Court dated 27th October 1987. The report is based on the minutes which were signed by the said Mr. Laxman Das Walia and the advocate of the petitioner and also the Receiver himself.
( 7 ) ON 15th February, 1988, the said ad interim order dated 17th September, 1987, after hearing the parties, was made absolute by a learned Judge by directing that Receiver will continue to be in formal possession of the said premises and there was also an order in terms of prayer 'b' which has been set out above and the parties were directed to maintain status quo in respect of the said premises without fail. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 10, 000/- within a period of fortnight from date. It has been made clear that in case of default in making payment, the Receiver will immediately take possession of the flat and put his own lock on the door.
( 8 ) THEREAFTER, the case of the petitioner is that in the early part of July 1992, the petitioner came to kno
Anwarbi v. Pramod D.A.Joshi and Ors.
Indian Cables Company Limited v. Smt.Sumitra Chakraborty
Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Company (P) Ltd.
Century Flowers Mills Limited v. S.Suppiah
Kalyan Kumar Khemka v. Grindlays Bank
REFERRED TO : Satyabrata Biswas v. Kalyan Kumar Kisku and Ors.
Surjit Singh and Ors. v. Harbans Singh and Ors.
Smt.Usha Ghosh v. Rabindra Nath Das and Ors.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.