Partly allowed

lalji dairy and farms Pvt. Ltd. v. satish k. kothari (huf) and 10 Ors.

Bombay HC22 Nov 2005APP/997/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court allowed the appeal in part. It directed the appellant (defendant no.10) to continue possession of premises as a lessee, pay rent to the Court Receiver, and file an undertaking not to create third-party rights.

What did the court decide?

Appellant to remain in possession as lessee, pay rent to Court Receiver, file undertaking within two weeks.

lalji dairy and farms Pvt. Ltd. Vs satish k. kothari (huf)… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

¶3

 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

 APPEAL NO.997 of 2005
 (Lod. No.969 of 2005)
 IN
 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1668 OF 2005
 IN
 SUIT NO. 1467 OF 2005

¶5

 Lalji Dairy & Farms Pvt.Ltd .. Appellant

¶6

 versus

¶7

 Satish K.Kothari & ors ..Respondents

¶8

 Ms.Alpana Ghone i/b M/s. Panchamatia & Co for the
 Appellant

¶9

 Mr.P.N.Modi a/w Mr.Bharat Yadav for Respondent nos. 1
 & 2

¶10

 Ms Lata Bachhani i/b M/s.I.R.Joshi & Co for the
 Respondent nos. 3 to 7.

¶11

CORAM : R.M. LODHA AND
 D.G. KARNIK, JJ

¶12

DATED : 22nd November 2005.

¶13

 P.C.:

¶14

 Admit.

¶15

 2. The respondents through their advocates waive
 service. Appeal is heard finally at this stage.

¶16

 3. The appeal is at the instance of the

¶17

¶18

 defendant no.10. The grievance of the defendant
 no.10 is that they are occupying the subject premises
 as lessees for last many years pursuant to the
 registered lease deed and that their lease rights
 could not have been affected by directing them to
 remain in occupation as an agent of the Court
 Receiver.

¶19

 4. It is admitted position that Notice of Motion
 is still pending and the impugned order is in the
 nature of ad-interim order. As regards the
 appointment of Court Receiver, the learned counsel
 for the appellant did not raise any grievance. From
 the available material, prima facie, it appears that
 the defendant no.1 is in occupation of the subject
 premises under the registered lease deed for last
 many years. In this situation, we find it difficult
 to approve the direction of the learned Motion Judge
 that though the defendant no.1 may continue to remain
 in possession of the subject premises but as an agent
 of the Court Receiver. If this direction is allowed
 to stand, it would seriously affect the leasehold
 rights of the defendant no.10. Rather, it shall
 virtually amount to extinguishment of lease hold
 rights of the defendant no.10 in the subject

¶20

¶21

 premises. Our view finds support from the judgement
 of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of
 Credible Trading and Investment Ltd. Vs. Nandlal
 Balkrishna and ors reported in 2000(4) Mh.L.J. 165.

¶22

 5. Appeal is accordingly allowed in part. The
 appointment of the Court Receiver in respect of the
 subject premises is upheld. The appellant (defendant
 no.10) shall continue to remain in possession of the
 subject premises as lessee but shall pay the rent as
 per the lease deed to the Court Receiver. The
 appellant shall file an undertaking with the Court
 Receiver within two weeks from today that they shall
 continue to abide by the terms of the lease deed and
 that they shall not create any third party right or
 interest in the subject premises in any manner
 whatsoever.

¶23

 (R.M. LODHA, J)

¶24

 (D.G. KARNIK, J)

lalji dairy and farms Pvt. Ltd. v. satish k. kothari (huf) and 10 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

lalji dairy and farms Pvt. Ltd. v. satish k. kothari (huf) and 10 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India Vs M/S. Khannoco Steel Merchants Pvt.Ltd.

Dr.Durgaprasad Shivdutt Rai Dadhich Vs Angelica M. Fernandes

Vinay a. Rathi Vs Narendra Balubhai Panchal and Ors.

Samir Doshi Vs Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. and 3 Ors.

Paresh Khandwala Vs Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. and 3 Ors.

Mafatlal Finance Co. Ltd. Vs Gujrat State Financial Corpn.