Back
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, Uday Kumar, JJ
Dilip Kr. Prasad @ Dileep Kr. Prasad and others – Appellant
Versus
Dinesh Kumar Prasad @ Dinesh Prasad and others – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the court emphasizes the need for substantial evidence in appointing a receiver. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 2. the court modifies previous orders to mandate the maintenance of accounts. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 3. the final outcome reserves merit evaluation for lower courts. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
1. The present challenge arises out of an order appointing a receiver passed in favour of the plaintiff/respondent in a partition suit.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that in the absence of any strong case of defalcation and/or misappropriation being made out in the receiver application and in support thereof, the learned Trial Judge was not justified in passing an order of receiver, thereby displacing the appellants from a running business of restaurant and bar, the licence in regard to which is held in the name of the appellant no. 1 alone.
3. Learned counsel further submits that the learned trial Judge was of the opinion that the jointness of the property is in doubt, but still, without considering the maintainability of the partition suit, which is a part of the prima facie case in grant of receiver, passed the order impugned herein appointing a receiver.
4. Learned counsel for the
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
