Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.23 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Benoy Krishna Mukherjee vs Satish Chandra Giri on 15 December, 1927
meaning thereby that it is just and convenient to both parties. Nor can a Receiver
be appointed merely because it will do no harm to do so. A well founded fear
that the property in question will be dissipated or that other irreparable mischief
may be done unless the court gives its protection is a good ground to appoint a
Receiver. Viscount Sumner said in Benoy Krishna Mukherjee v. Satish
Chandra Giri (AIR 1928 PC 49),
"On an interim application for a receivership such as
this, the Court has to consider whether special
interference with the possession of a defendant is
required, there being a well founded fear that the
property in question will be dissipated or that other
irreparable mischief may be done unless the Court
gives its protection. Such an order is discretionary,
and the discretion is, in the first instance, that of the
Court in which the suit itself is pending. ............."
Firm Ashok Traders And Anr. Etc vs Gurumukh Das Saluja And Ors. Etc on 9 January, 2004
The Advocate Commissioner inspected suit
property and reported that respondent has cut down an anjilee tree from that
property a few days before his inspection. On I.A.No.392 of 2010 learned
WP(C) No.18303/2010
10
Munsiff passed an order of injunction restraining respondent from committing
waste in the suit property. Petitioners then filed I.A.No.547 of 2010 to appoint a
Receiver for the suit property. Learned Munsiff held that circumstances did not
warrant the harshest step of appointing a Receiver for the suit property and
declined to do so. Learned counsel for petitioners, placing reliance on the
decision of the Supreme Court in Firm Ashok Traders and another v.
Gurumukh Das Saluja and others ((2004) 3 SCC 155(paragraph
No.15)) has contended that this is a fit case where a Receiver ought to be
appointed. Learned counsel contended that respondent has not even the
semblance of a right in the suit property as the document produced by
petitioners show that the Will is a forged document. Learned counsel has
referred me to the disputed Will and Ext.P3, a certificate dated 21.12.2009
issued by the Secretary of Karimannoor Service Co-operative Bank.
E. Kuttappan vs Mrs. Sarojini Bhaskaran on 23 June, 1998
9. Learned counsel apprehends that respondent might commit
waste in the suit property in future. If it happens, petitioners are not without any
remedy. If future events make it "just and convenient" to appoint a Receiver,
the court has the power to invoke its jurisdiction. This Court in Kuttappan v.
Sarojini Bhaskaran (1998 (2) KLT 406) has held that dismissal of an
earlier application for appointment of a Receiver will not be a bar if the court
finds that some other circumstances exists which necessitate the appointment of
a Receiver.
1