Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.19 seconds)Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Societies Registration Act, 1860
Section 94 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Satyanarayan Banerji And Anr. vs Kalyani Prosad Singh Deo Bahadur And ... on 28 May, 1945
In Satyanarayan Banerji & Another Vs. Kalyani Prosad Singh Deo Bahadur & Others, AIR 1945 CAL 387, the Court held that object and purpose of appointment of a Receiver may generally be stated to be the preservation of subject matter of the litigation pending, a judicial determination of the rights of the parties thereto. The Receiver is appointed for the benefit of all concerned, he is the representative of the Court and of all parties interested in the litigation, wherein he is appointed. The appointment of a Receiver is an act of Court and made in the interest of justice. He is an officer or representative of the Court subject to its order. His possession is the possession of the Court.
Ry. Sivaji Raja Sahib And Anr. vs Ry. V. Aiswariyanandaji Sahib And Ors. on 16 April, 1915
(1) The appointment of a receiver pending a suit is a matter resting in the discretion of the Court. The discretion is not arbitrary or absolute: it is a sound and judicial discretion, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, exercised for the purpose of permitting the ends of justice, and protecting the rights of all parties interested in the controversy and the subject-matter and based upon the fact that there is no other adequate remedy or means of accomplishing the desired objects of the judicial proceeding: -- 'Mathusri v. Mathusri,' 19 Mad 120 (PC) (Z5); -- 'Sivagnanathammal v. Arunachallam Pillai', 21 Mad LJ 821 (Z6); -- 'Habibullah v. Abtiakallah', AIR 1918 Cal 882 (Z7); -- 'Tirath Singh v. Shromani Gurudvvara Prabandhak Committee', AIR 1931 Lah 688 (Z8); -- 'Ghanasham v. Moraba', 18 Bom 474 (Z9); -- 'Jagat Tarini Dasi v. Nabagopal Chaki', 34 Cal 305 (Z10); -- 'Sivaji Raja Sahib v. Aiswariyanandaji', AIR 1915 Mad 926 (Z11); -- 'Prasanno Moyi Devi v. Beni Madhab Rai', 5 All 556 (Z12); -- 'Sidheswari Dabi v. Abhayeswari Dabi', 15 Cal 818 (Z13); -- 'Shromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee, Amritsar v. Dharam Das', AIR 1925 Lah 349 (Z14); -- 'Bhupendra Nath v. Manohar Mukerjee', AIR 1924 Cal 456 (Z15).
Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak ... vs Sanatan Dharam Sabha And Anr. on 28 March, 2007
(1) The appointment of a receiver pending a suit is a matter resting in the discretion of the Court. The discretion is not arbitrary or absolute: it is a sound and judicial discretion, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, exercised for the purpose of permitting the ends of justice, and protecting the rights of all parties interested in the controversy and the subject-matter and based upon the fact that there is no other adequate remedy or means of accomplishing the desired objects of the judicial proceeding: -- 'Mathusri v. Mathusri,' 19 Mad 120 (PC) (Z5); -- 'Sivagnanathammal v. Arunachallam Pillai', 21 Mad LJ 821 (Z6); -- 'Habibullah v. Abtiakallah', AIR 1918 Cal 882 (Z7); -- 'Tirath Singh v. Shromani Gurudvvara Prabandhak Committee', AIR 1931 Lah 688 (Z8); -- 'Ghanasham v. Moraba', 18 Bom 474 (Z9); -- 'Jagat Tarini Dasi v. Nabagopal Chaki', 34 Cal 305 (Z10); -- 'Sivaji Raja Sahib v. Aiswariyanandaji', AIR 1915 Mad 926 (Z11); -- 'Prasanno Moyi Devi v. Beni Madhab Rai', 5 All 556 (Z12); -- 'Sidheswari Dabi v. Abhayeswari Dabi', 15 Cal 818 (Z13); -- 'Shromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee, Amritsar v. Dharam Das', AIR 1925 Lah 349 (Z14); -- 'Bhupendra Nath v. Manohar Mukerjee', AIR 1924 Cal 456 (Z15).
R.E. Muhammad Qasim Ravuther vs R.G. Nagaraja Moopanar And Ors. on 28 April, 1927
(2) The Court should not appoint a receiver except upon proof by the plaintiff that prima facie he has very excellent chance of succeeding in the S. suit. -- 'Dhumi v. Nawab Sajjad Ali Khan', AIR 1923 Lah 623 (Z16); -- 'Firm of Raghubir Singh Jaswant v. Narinjan Singh', AIR 1923 Lah 48 (Z17); -- 'Siaram Das v. Mohabir Das', 27 Cal 279 (Z18); -- 'Muhammad Kasim v. Nagaraja Moopanar', AIR 1928 Mad 813 (Z19); -- 'Banwarilal Chowdhury v. Motilal', AIR 1922 Pat 493 (Z20).
Alkama Bibi And Ors. vs Syed Istak Hossain And Ors. on 20 June, 1924
(4) An order appointing a receiver will not be made where it has the effect of depriving a defendant of a 'de facto' possession since that might cause irreparable wrong. If the dispute is as to title only, the Court very reluctantly disturbs possession by receiver, but if the property is exposed to danger and loss and the person in possession has obtained it through fraud or force the Court will interpose by receiver for the security of the property. It would be different where the property is shown to be 'in medio', that is to say, in the enjoyment of no one, as the Court can hardly do wrong in taking possession: it will then be the common interest of all the parties that the Court should prevent a scramble as no one seems to be in actual lawful enjoyment of the property and no harm can be done to anyone by taking it and preserving it for the benefit of the legitimate who may prove successful. Therefore, even if there is no allegation of waste and mismanagement the fact that the property is more or less 'in medio' is sufficient to vest a Court with jurisdiction to appoint a receiver. -- 'Nilambar Das v. Mabal Behari', AIR 1927 Pat 220 (Z24); -- 'Alkama Bibi v. Syed Istak Hussain', AIR 1925 Cal 970 (Z25); -- 'Mathuria Debya v. Shibdayal Singh', 14 Cal WN 252 (Z26); -- 'Bhubaneswar Prasad v. Rajeshwar Prasad', AIR 1948 Pat 195 (Z27). Otherwise a receiver should not be appointed in supersession of a bone fide possessor of property in controversy and bona fides have to be presumed until the contrary is established or can be indubitably inferred.
Srimati Mathuria Debya vs Shibdoyal Singh Hazari And Ors. on 6 December, 1909
(4) An order appointing a receiver will not be made where it has the effect of depriving a defendant of a 'de facto' possession since that might cause irreparable wrong. If the dispute is as to title only, the Court very reluctantly disturbs possession by receiver, but if the property is exposed to danger and loss and the person in possession has obtained it through fraud or force the Court will interpose by receiver for the security of the property. It would be different where the property is shown to be 'in medio', that is to say, in the enjoyment of no one, as the Court can hardly do wrong in taking possession: it will then be the common interest of all the parties that the Court should prevent a scramble as no one seems to be in actual lawful enjoyment of the property and no harm can be done to anyone by taking it and preserving it for the benefit of the legitimate who may prove successful. Therefore, even if there is no allegation of waste and mismanagement the fact that the property is more or less 'in medio' is sufficient to vest a Court with jurisdiction to appoint a receiver. -- 'Nilambar Das v. Mabal Behari', AIR 1927 Pat 220 (Z24); -- 'Alkama Bibi v. Syed Istak Hussain', AIR 1925 Cal 970 (Z25); -- 'Mathuria Debya v. Shibdayal Singh', 14 Cal WN 252 (Z26); -- 'Bhubaneswar Prasad v. Rajeshwar Prasad', AIR 1948 Pat 195 (Z27). Otherwise a receiver should not be appointed in supersession of a bone fide possessor of property in controversy and bona fides have to be presumed until the contrary is established or can be indubitably inferred.