SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(Del) 145

S.D.PANDIT
DHRUV GOYAL – Appellant
Versus
ANAND PRAKASH GOYAL – Respondent


S. D. Pandit

( 1 ) THIS application is filed by the plaintiffs under the provisions of Order 40 Rule I read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for appointment of a Receiver in respect of the suit properties. According to the plaintiffs after the filing of the present suit they have got some letter written by the original Defendant No. 1 Anand Prakash Goel and it indicates that defendant No. I Anand Prakash Goel has divided various shops as well as profits from the said shops between his sons, defendants 2 and 3, in exclusion of the plaintiffs.

( 2 ) THE said deceased defendant No. 1 Anand Prakash Goel has executed a Will plaintiffs, defendants 2 and: 3 are acting against the interests of the HUF and, therefore, it is proper and necessary to appoint a Receiver.

( 3 ) THE claim of the plaintiffs is resisted by the defendants by filing their reply. They contended that shop Nos. 109 and 110, Palika Bazar, New Delhi are not the subject matter of the suit. As regards shop at Kamal Bazar it is the contention of the defendants that they were owned by defendant No. 1 Anand Prakash Goel and that the same were not joint family property. The shop Nos. 824 and 825, Nai Sarak, Delhi









Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top