LexM/S. SHERALI KHAN MOHAMED MANEKIA versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 3 S.C.R. 829 M/S. SHERALI KHAN MOHAMED MANEKIA A v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAAND OTHERS Civil Appeal Nos. 2475-2476 of 2015 FEBRUARY 27, 2015 [ M.Y. EQBAL AND KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.] B Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or. 40 - Court receiver C - Continuance of - After disposal of the appeal - Permissibility - Held: Ordinarily the function of Receiver comes to an end with the final decision of the case - However, even after the final decision the Court has discretion to take further assistance of the Receiver - Jn the D instant case, since the decree-holder had kept the decree in execution for recovery of possession, the executing court could have taken assistance of the Receiver only for affecting delivery of possession and not more than that. E Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: When a Receiver is appointed pending suit or appeal, the prime objective is to preserve the property by taking possession or otherwise and to keep F an account of rent and profits that may be realized by the Receiver and to submit it before the court till the lis is finally decided. Ordinarily the function of receivers comes to an end with the final decision of the case. However, even after the final decision, the Court has the G discretion to take further assistance of the Receiver as and when the need arises. In the instant case, the appellants have already put the decree in execution for 829 H 830 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 3 S.C.R. A recovery of possession. Therefore, the Executing Court while executing the decree may take assistance of the Receiver or by appointing new Receiver or Commissioner for effecting delivery of possession in accordance with law and not more than that. In the facts B and circumstances of the case, there is no error in the impugned order passed by the High Court. [para 14-15] [836-G-H; 837-A-D] c Halsbury Laws of England, 3rd Edn. Vol. 32; Law of Receiver, 4th Edn. by James L. High - referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2475-2476 of 2015. From the Judgment and Order dated 14.01.2013 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Court Receiver's D Report No. 25 of 2007 and Additional Report No. 383 of 2012 in Appeal from Order No. 221 of 1980 in C. A. No. 11569 of 1980. Shyam Divan, Ayaz Bilawala, Manish Parikh, Mahesh E Agarwal, Rishi Agrawala, E. C. Agrawala, Pratush Panjwani for the Appellant. Aniruddha P. Mayee, Charuddatta Mahindrakar, A. Selvin Raja, Vinay Navare, Satyajeet Kumar, Keshav, Abha R. Sharma, Asha Gopalan Nair, Sushil Karanjkar, Ratan G. F Wasekar, K. N. Rai for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.Y. EQBAL, J. 1. Leave granted. G 2. In the instant appeals by special leave the appellant assailed the order dated 14th January, 2013 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court in Court Receiver's Report No.25 of 2007 and Additional Report No. 383 of 2012, whereby the High Court while disposing of the Report of the Court Receiver held that after the disposal of H First Appeal No. 767 of 1998 and dismissal of the special SHERALI KHAN MOHAMED MANEKIA v. THE STATE 831 OF MAHARASHTRA [M.Y. EQBAL, J.] leave petition, the Receiver deemed to have been A discharged. 3. It appears that the suit property was declared as evacuee property and the same was purchased by the appellant in an auction sale as far back as on 15.6.1964. B In the year 1980, the appellant filed a suit being Civil Suit No. 37 of 1980 before the District Judge, Thane Court seeking specific performance of the sale of the property and possession and interim relief of injunction restraining the defendants therein from carrying on further construction on C the suit property. The appellant further made a prayer for appointment of Receiver. 4. The trial court rejected the prayer for appointment of Receiver by order dated 3.5.1980 and against that, D appellant moved the High Court in First Appeal, which was finally heard and order dated 22. 7 .1980 was passed appointing the Court Receiver. The High Court while making appointment of the Receiver directed to take possession of the suit property. All the persons who were in actual E possession of any part of the suit property were continued to remain in possession. The Receiver was directed to collect rent and compensation as the case may be from all the persons in actual possession after verifying from them their present right to remain
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.