SHREE RAM URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. Vs. COURT RECEIVER, HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
LAWS(SC)-2014-5-31
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
Decided on
May 09,2014
Shree Ram Urban Infrastructure Ltd.
Appellant
VERSUS
The Court Receiver, High Court Of Bombay
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
WILKINSON V. GANGADHAR SIRKAR [REFERRED TO]RAM RANJAN CHAKRAVARTI VS. A.B. MILLER [REFERRED TO]
C.T. DAVIS AND ORS. VS. DROBOMOYI GUPTA AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
SHUNMUGAM V. MOIDIN [REFERRED TO]
GOPALA SAMI V. SANKARA [REFERRED TO]
SUNDARAM V. SANKARA [REFERRED TO]
HURI DASS KUNDU VS. J.C. MACGREGOR,RECEIVER,HIGH COURT [REFERRED TO]
JAGAT TARINI DASI VS. NABA GOPAL CHAKI [REFERRED TO]
HURI DASS KUNDU V. J.C. MACGREGOR [REFERRED TO]
W.R. FINK V. BULDEO DASS [REFERRED TO]
KASSIM MAMOOJI VS. K.B. DUTT AND ANR. [REFERRED TO]
KURAPATI VENKATA MALLAYYA VS. THONDEPU RAMASWAMI AND CO [REFERRED TO]
HARINAGAR SUGAR MILLS DO LIMITED BOMBAY VS. M W PRADHAN NOW G V DALVI COURT RECEIVER HIGH COURT BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
EVEREST COAL COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
BALKRISHAN GUPTA VS. SWADESHI POLYTEX LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA KUMAR KHEMKA VS. GRINDLAYS BANK P L C [REFERRED TO]
ANTHONY C LEO VS. NANDLAL BAL KRISHNAN [REFERRED TO]
SHANTARAM HIRACHAND DANEZ VS. NARAYAN BAPUSA FULPAGAR [REFERRED TO]
SHYAM LAL GOMATWALA VS. NAND LAL [REFERRED TO]
MAHARANA KUNWAR VS. EVDAVID [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
RAMDEV YADAV VS. B K SINGH [LAWS(ALL)-2016-9-283] [REFERRED]V C SRINIVASAN VS. KAMARAJ CHARITY, REP BY ITS SECRETARY V P MANI [LAWS(MAD)-2017-2-493] [REFERRED TO]
PAWAN KUMAR AND ANOTHER VS. SITA DEVI [LAWS(ALL)-2019-9-174] [REFERRED TO]
BAJRANG LAL SWAMI VS. KANTA DEVI [LAWS(RAJ)-2020-9-46] [REFERRED TO]
JASWANT SINGH VS. NARENDRA KUMAR [LAWS(RAJ)-2020-9-117] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and order dated 16th September, 2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Civil Revision Application No.452 of 2009, dismissing the Civil Revision Application filed by the appellant-tenant. The brief facts, necessary for the disposal of this appeal are thus: An immovable property known as "Dev Ashish" is a tenanted property situated at Padam Tekri, Peddar Road, Bombay (hereinafter referred to as the "suit property"). The respondent herein was appointed by the Bombay High Court to take charge of the suit property in Suit No.234 of 1987, which was filed on the original side of the Bombay High Court, in terms of prayer clause (a) of the Notice of Motion which reads as follows:
"(a) That pending the hearing and final disposal of above suit, the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay or some other fit and proper person be appointed as a Receiver of an immovable property known as "Dev Ashish" situate on Sub-Plot No.1 of Plot No.C.S.S.755 at Padam Tekdi, Pedder Road, Bombay 400 026, with all powers under Order XL, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, including the owner to recover, receive and collect the rent, income and profits thereof."
(3.)The respondent, being the Court Receiver in the aforesaid suit, issued Notice dated July 26, 2001 to the appellant herein to pay compensation at the rate of RS.1,75,000/- per month from 1.4.2000 and to vacate the suit premises. The appellant replied to the said notice of the respondent stating that the respondent has been appointed to control the suit premises and has no right and power to determine the tenancy of the appellant. Meanwhile, the appellant was declared as a sick company under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the SICA').
(2.)This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and order dated 16th September, 2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Civil Revision Application No.452 of 2009, dismissing the Civil Revision Application filed by the appellant-tenant. The brief facts, necessary for the disposal of this appeal are thus: An immovable property known as "Dev Ashish" is a tenanted property situated at Padam Tekri, Peddar Road, Bombay (hereinafter referred to as the "suit property"). The respondent herein was appointed by the Bombay High Court to take charge of the suit property in Suit No.234 of 1987, which was filed on the original side of the Bombay High Court, in terms of prayer clause (a) of the Notice of Motion which reads as follows:
"(a) That pending the hearing and final disposal of above suit, the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay or some other fit and proper person be appointed as a Receiver of an immovable property known as "Dev Ashish" situate on Sub-Plot No.1 of Plot No.C.S.S.755 at Padam Tekdi, Pedder Road, Bombay 400 026, with all powers under Order XL, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, including the owner to recover, receive and collect the rent, income and profits thereof."
(3.)The respondent, being the Court Receiver in the aforesaid suit, issued Notice dated July 26, 2001 to the appellant herein to pay compensation at the rate of RS.1,75,000/- per month from 1.4.2000 and to vacate the suit premises. The appellant replied to the said notice of the respondent stating that the respondent has been appointed to control the suit premises and has no right and power to determine the tenancy of the appellant. Meanwhile, the appellant was declared as a sick company under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the SICA').
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.