Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.28 seconds)Section 17 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Rajeshwar Nath Gupta vs Administrator General And Ors. on 20 April, 1988
In
Rajeshwar Nath Gupta v. Administrator General & Ors, AIR
1989 Delhi 179 it was held that where the defense set up is
bona fide and the proposition of law is arguable, it is not
advisable for the Court to appoint a receiver to take
possession of immovable property from the defendants
unless and until the Court is of the opinion that there is well
founded fear that the property in question will be dissipated
or that other irreparable mischief may be done unless the
Court gives a protection. It is only if more than a prima facie
case is made out by the plaintiff of the likelihood of the suit
being decreed and if there is no tangible defense raised by
the defendants and if it will lead to manifest injustice, then in
exceptional circumstances the Court would be justified in
appointing a receiver and granting interim injunction.
Syed Khuwaja Syed Ahmed vs The Maharashtra Housing And Area ... on 20 September, 1982
"38. Regarding appointment of a receiver a Single Judge of
the Bombay High Court in Syed Khuwaja Syed Ahmed v. The
Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority, AIR
1983 Bombay 73 had held that it must be determined not only
on the facts of a particular case but also in the context of a
social situation.
Ravi Kumar vs Misha Vadhera And Ors. on 16 November, 1994
A Division Bench of this Court in Ravi Kumar
v. Misha Vadhera & Ors. AIR 1995 Delhi 175 had held that the
discretion to appoint a receiver is not arbitrary or unregulated
but has to be exercised cautiously, judicially and according to
the legal principles after consideration of the whole of the
circumstances of the case. A receiver cannot be appointed
merely because it is expedient or convenient to one of the
parties to do so or because it will do no harm. A bonafide
possessor of property should not be dispossessed pending
suit unless there is substantial reason such as, well founded
fear that the property in question being dissipated or that
some other irreparable mischief may occur unless the Court
gives its protection. Before appointing a receiver the matter
should be considered judicially in all aspects including prima
facie case that is either a good title to the property or special
equity in his favor requiring immediate dispossession of the
defendant or that the property in the hands of the defendant
is in the danger of being wasted."
1