Back
KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA
Jaigurudev Dharm Pracharak Sanstha – Appellant
Versus
Pankaj Yadav – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Kshitij Shailendra, J.)
1. Heard Shri Anil Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Vinod Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for appellants in FAFO No. 602 of 2023, Shri Santosh Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for appellants in FAFO No. 297 of 2024 and Shri V.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Rahul Sahai and Shri Sukesh Kumar, for respondent nos. 1 and 2 in both the appeals.
2. By the previous orders of this Court passed in both the appeals, service of notice upon the remaining respondents has been held to be sufficient. Since these two appeals involve common questions of fact and law, the same are being decided by a common judgment.
3. In both the appeals, order dated 13.03.2023 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mathura in O.S. No. 595 of 2012 has been challenged at the instance of plaintiffs and counter claimants. By the said order, four applications were decided after observing that all the applications contained identical prayer and were related to each other.
4. The grievance raised by the appellants is with regard to appointment of receiver to manage the properties and funds of 'Jaigurudev Dharma Pracharak Sanstha'. For this purpose, whereas pla
The appointment of a receiver requires clear evidence of mismanagement and an element of urgency, which was not established in this case.
The appointment of a Receiver requires a prima facie case, emergent circumstances, and cannot violate lawful possession rights, which were not established in this case.
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 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 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....
Impartiality in appointing a receiver is crucial; a managing partner cannot be appointed as a receiver of a dissolved partnership amid trust issues and financial misappropriation allegations.
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
