Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.19 seconds)
Tata Motor Finance Limited vs Ramesh Kumar on 9 November, 2011 cites

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.
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 471 - B N Kirpal - Full Document

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."
Delhi High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 459 - M J Rao - Full Document
1