Bombay High Court
M/S. Manas Shelters Pvt. Ltd vs Madhavlal Narayanlal Pittie And 4 ... on 29 January, 2021
Author: B. P. Colabawalla
Bench: B. P. Colabawalla
1 11-CHSCD 1196-18 in COMS 344-15.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1196 OF 2018
IN
COMMERCIAL SUIT NO.344 OF 2015
M/s. Manas Shelters Pvt. Ltd. ] ... Applicant/Plaintif
Versus
Madhavlal Narayanlal Pittie & Ors. ] ... Respondents /
Defendants
AND
The Court Receiver, ]
Bombay High Court. ] ... Respondent /
(Third Party)
Mr. Mr. Aloukik R. Pai a/w Mr. Akshay R. Pai, Mr. Prem Gadda i/b
Bina R. Pai for Applicant / Plaintif.
Mr. Zal Andhyarujina, Senior Counsel, a/w Mr. Harsh Meghani, &
Mr. B. N. Shukla i/b M/s. D. J. Kamdin & Co. for Respondent No.1 /
Defendant No.1.
Mr. Sagar Patil for Defendant No.3.
Mr. N. N. Thakkar for Defendant No.4.
Mr. Prabhakar Jadhav & Mr. Nikhil Patil for Defendant No.5.
CORAM :- B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.
DATE :- 29 JANUARY, 2021 P. C. :-
1. The present Chamber Summons has been fled by the Plaintif to substitute Defendant No.1 (Madhavlal Narayanlal Pittie) with the proposed Defendant No.1 i.e. The Court Receiver, URS 1 of 5 ::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 09/02/2021 05:50:53 ::: 2 11-CHSCD 1196-18 in COMS 344-15.odt Bombay High Court, as per the Schedule annexed to the Chamber Summons.
2. Originally, Suit No.224 of 1961 (for short, the '1961 suit') was fled in this Court by Madhusudanlal Narayanlal Pittie (the Plaintif therein) for partition of the properties of the Late Narayanlal Pittie. One of the suit properties in the 1961 suit i.e. property at Falkhand Road, Tardeo, Mumbai, (for short the 'Tardeo property') is the subject-matter of the present suit.
3. In the 1961 suit, Madhavlal Narayanlal Pittie, was appointed as a Private Receiver by order dated 21/07/1967. Since the Tardeo property was in a dilapidated condition, the Private Receiver fled a Receiver's Report No.10131/2002 seeking permission to carry out redevelopment of the Tardeo property. This was permitted by this Court vide its order dated 10/04/2002. Pursuant thereto, the Private Receiver entered into a development agreement with the Plaintif herein dated 16/12/2003 for developing the Tardeo property. It is the case of the Plaintif herein that the Private Receiver thereafter wrongfully terminated the development agreement on 16/07/2013 and hence to challenge the same and seek specifc performance of the said development agreement, the present suit is fled.
URS 2 of 5 ::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 09/02/2021 05:50:53 ::: 3 11-CHSCD 1196-18 in COMS 344-15.odt
4. It now transpires that the Private Receiver Madhavlal Narayanlal Pittie (Defendant No.1 herein) expired on 11/04/2018. Thereafter Damayanti Madhudanlal Pittie (wife of the original Plaintif in the 1961 suit who passed away on 12/08/2011) made an application to the Court in the 1961 suit to substitute the name of Vivek Madhavlal Pittie as a Private Receiver in lieu of Madhavlal Narayanlal Pittie. This application was allowed by this Court on 13/04/2018 and Vivek Madhavlal Pittie was substituted as a Private Receiver in place of Madhavlal Narayanlal Pittie.
5. In this factual backdrop, I enquired from Mr. Pai as to how the present Chamber Summons is maintainable wherein he seeks to substitute the Court Receiver in place of Madhavlal Narayanlal Pittie. Mr. Pai sought to rely upon an order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Appeal No.561 of 2014 in Chamber Summons No.738 of 2013 in Suit No.224 of 1961 (the 1961 suit). Relying upon this order, Mr. Pai submitted that the Division Bench has given the Plaintif specifc liberty to fle the present Chamber Summons for either seeking a discharge of the Private Receiver and / or his substitution.
URS 3 of 5
::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 09/02/2021 05:50:53 :::
4 11-CHSCD 1196-18 in COMS 344-15.odt
6. I have carefully gone through the order of the Division Bench. This order is passed in the 1961 suit. The Division Bench has kept all contentions open including the question of maintainability. It is clearly opined that the Plaintif can seek the relief either in the 1961 suit or in his substantial proceedings namely, the present suit. The Division Bench does not, in any way, opine that the present application made by the Plaintif would be maintainable. Hence the reliance placed on the order of the Division Bench passed in Appeal No.561 of 2014 in Chamber Summons No.738 of 2013 in Suit No.224 of 1961 is wholly misconceived.
7. That being said, I fnd that if this Chamber Summons for substitution is allowed, it would lead to a complete absurdity. If I was to allow the present Chamber Summons for substitution of the Court Receiver in place of Madhavlal Narayanlal Pittie who has now expired and substituted by Mr. Vivek Pittie as a Private Receiver, it would efectively amount to two separate Receivers being appointed in relation to the same property namely the Tardeo property. In other words, in the 1961 suit, Vivek Pittie would be the Receiver in relation to the Tardeo property and in the present suit, the Court Receiver would be the Receiver. This would lead to a complete absurd situation. This being the case, I URS 4 of 5 ::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 09/02/2021 05:50:53 ::: 5 11-CHSCD 1196-18 in COMS 344-15.odt fnd that this Chamber Summons, especially in this suit, is wholly misconcieved. The substitution sought for by Mr. Pai can never be granted in this suit.
8. In this situation and for the reasons set out earlier, I fnd no merit in this Chamber Summons and it is accordingly dismissed.
9. This order shall be digitally signed by the Private Secretory / Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned shall act on production by fax or e-mail of a digitally signed copy of this order.
(B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.)
URS 5 of 5
::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 09/02/2021 05:50:53 :::