Balkishen vs Narain Dass-Chela Ram - 1935 Supreme(Lah) 220

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1935 Supreme(Lah) 220

DIN MOHAMMAD
Balkishen – Appellant
Versus
Narain Dass-Chela Ram – Respondent

JUDGMENT

Din Mohammad, J. - This appeal has arisen out of certain execution proceedings. The decree-holder respondents applied to the executing Court for the appointment of a receiver to collect the gate money of a cinema hall owned by the judgment-debtor. The executing Court allowed this application but with the express reservation that the receiver will not be entitled to manage the show but would merely keep an account of the income and expenditure and deposit the amount daily in the civil Court account. Against this order the judgment-debtor has appealed. Counsel for the appellant contends that such future earnings are not covered by Order 40, Rule 1, Civil P.C.,. and that therefore no receiver can be appointed to collect them. In support of his contention he relies on Cadogan v. Lyric Theatre (1894) 3 Ch D 338, Hemchandra Nath v. Prokash Chandra 1932 Cal 189, Dharendra Krishna v. Surendra Krishna 1930 Cal 610 and Pirthi Chand Lal v. Kalikanand Singh 1922 Pat 318. In Cadogan v. Lyric Theatre (1894) 3 Ch D 338.

A judgment for debt was recovered against a theatre company. The theatre was subject to a mortgage. The company had no land except the theatre, of which they were lessees a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document