Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 1093
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.
M/S SAGAR RTNA RESTAURANTS PVT LTD - Petitioner
Vs.
TARSEEM KUMAR & ORS. - Respondents
O.M.P. 1064/2012
Decided On : 29-02-2016
For the Appellant : Mr. Vijay Nair, Mr. Rahul Malhotra, Advs.
For the Respondent: Mr. Ravi Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Manoj Gupta, Adv. for the applicant/Shree Rathnam Restaurants.
Mr. Anil K. Khaware, Mr. Abhinav, Advs. for D-1 to 3.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the receiver's mandate may extend beyond the expiry date of an agreement if the nature of the claims and the agreement's terms necessitate continued oversight.
Headnote:
Receiver - Dispute over Receiver's Mandate - [Arbitration, Civil Procedure Code] - The court discussed the appointment and mandate of the receiver in the context of the agreement's termination and the claims made by the parties. The receiver's role was to ensure proper accounts of sales and profits for the arbitrator's consideration. The court found that the receiver's mandate extended beyond the agreement's expiry date due to the nature of the claims and the agreement's terms.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute arose from the appointment and mandate of the receiver in the context of the termination of an agreement between the parties. The receiver was appointed to oversee the accounts of sales and profits for arbitration proceedings due to alleged illegal dispossession and breach of agreement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the receiver's mandate extended beyond the agreement's expiry date, as the claims made by the parties and the terms of the agreement indicated a need for continued oversight of the restaurant business.
Issues: The key issue was whether the receiver's mandate should continue beyond the expiry date of the agreement, considering the nature of the claims and the terms of the agreement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the receiver's mandate extended beyond the agreement's expiry date due to the nature of the claims and the terms of the agreement, which required continued oversight of the restaurant business.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the application seeking clarification on the receiver's mandate, affirming that the receiver's role extended beyond the agreement's expiry date based on the claims and agreement terms.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.
IA 14211/2015
1. By this order, I shall dispose of IA 14211/2015, which has been filed by M/s Shree Ratnam Restaurants Pvt. Ltd. (SRRP) The prayers in the application, are, as under:-
“(i) That the receiver cannot interfere in the working and day to day operation of the Shree Rathnam Outlet at Rohini post 30.04.2015;
(ii) That the receiver / auditor cum manager cannot obstruct or demand any information with regard to the working of Shree Rathnam Restaurant at Rohini after 30.04.2015;
(iii) That the Hon'ble Court may clarify that the appointment of arbitrator shall exist till the validity of the initial agreement between the parties i.e. agreement dated 01.05.2005;
(iv) Such other and further orders which may this court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
2. Suffice to state, that this petition was disposed of on April 17, 2013, when this Court had appointed Sh. J.P. Sharma, Additional District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) as receiver as regard to the affairs and conduct of the restaurant business by the respondents themselves or through M/s. Shree Rathnam Restaurants Pvt. Ltd. (SRRP) in the premises i.e. 33, 35 & 36, Pocket C-9, Sector 7, Rohini, Delhi. Subsequently, two applications being IA No.497/2014 & IA No.17214/2013 were filed by SRRP, the applicant herein for modification of the order dated April 17, 2013 and the other by the petitioner for appointment of new receiver. This Court in IA 17214/2013 in para 11 has passed the following order:-
“11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, insofar as IA 17214/2013 seeking appointment of Receiver is concerned, I note that Mr. R.C. Yaduvanshi, Retd. ADJ had tendered his resignation on September 9, 2013. The learned counsel for the parties during the submissions had stated that even Mr. Hitesh Luthra has resigned. The position which emerges is, with effect from September 9, 2013, no Receiver is in place to look after the affairs and conduct of the restaurant business for almost more than one year. I accordingly, appoint Mr. Padam Kant Saxena, Retd. Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Mobile No.9910384668) as the Receiver with regard to the affairs and conduct of the restaurant, strictly in accordance with the order of this Court dated April 17, 2013. He would be entitled to the remuneration as fixed in the said order and would be at liberty to employ a suitable Manager of his own choice to look after the day-to-day affairs and conduct of the business of the restaurant. It is made clear that respondents and the applicant would cooperate with the Receiver in running the affairs and conduct of the restaurant, including the Manager so appointed by the Receiver.”
3. Insofar as IA 497/2014 is concerned, the same was filed by SRRP in terms of liberty granted by the Division Bench of this Court in FAO(OS) 293/2013 filed by the applicant herein, to approach this Court to iron out the practical difficulties arising out, as a result of the order dated April 17, 2013 with regard to working of the receiver, to which the learned counsel for the petitioner herein had given his no objection. IA 497/2014 was considered by this Court and the following order was passed in para 12 to 15 of the order dated February 24, 2015, which I reproduce as under:-
“12. Insofar as IA 497/2014 is concerned, the said application has been filed by the applicant SRRP on January 07, 2014. The prayers made in the said application reads as under:
“In view of the above said it is therefore most humbly prayed that Hon’ble Court may please to modify the terms of order dated 17.04.2013 in terms of order passed in FAO(OS) 293/2013 dated 23.08.2013 to the extent of:-
(a) Accounts to the extent of commission paid to the respondent i.e. 18% of net sales be directed to be furnished;
(b) The petitioner shall be restrained from interfering into the business of the applicant company;
(c) Such other and further orders which may this court deems fit and proper in the facts and circu
