Disposed

Purna C. Shah v. Pankaj C. Shah and Ors. and Radha Vallab Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd.

Bombay HC2 Mar 2005NMS/131/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ad-interim order in succession suit regarding deceased father's estate. Court granted injunction restraining defendants from alienating plaintiff's 1/4th share and appointed a receiver over the business conducted by defendant no.1 without security or royalty pending further orders.

What did the court decide?

Injunction restraining transfer of 1/4th share; appointment of receiver over business with defendant no.1 as agent; no security or royalty.

Purna C. Shah Vs Pankaj C. Shah and Ors. and Radha… — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

¶3

 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

 NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 131 oF 2005

¶5

IN

¶6

 SUIT NO. 113 OF 2005

¶7

 Purna C. Shah .. Plaintiff

¶8

 versus

¶9

 Pankaj C. Shah & ors. .. Defendants

¶10

 Mr.H. Toor i/b ALN Khatri for the plaintiff.

¶11

 Ms.Alpana Ghone i/b DSK Legal for the defendant.

¶12

 CORAM : D.G. KARNIK,J.

¶13

 DATED : 2nd March 2005.

¶14

 P.C.:

¶15

 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

 2. It is admitted by the learned counsel that the
 deceased Chandrakant Shah died without leaving behind
 him a will. According to the plaintiff, all
 properties mentioned in the schedule belonged to the
 deceased while according to the defendant, property

¶17

¶18

 at Sr.No. I(b) belongs to the defendant no.3 and

¶19

 some of the investments are made by defendant no.3
 and belong to her. However, no affidavit in reply
 has been filed and there is no prima facie material
 on record to show that any of the said properties
 belonged to the defendant no.3. All the properties
 stand either in the sole name of the Chandrakant Shah
 or his name appears first jointly with others. In
 the circumstances, prima facie I am satisfied that
 the deceased Chandrakant Shah was the owner of the
 properties and the plaintiff would have 1/4th share
 therein. As such, in my view, it would be
 appropriate to grant injunction restraining the
 defendants from alienating or otherwise dealing with
 1/4th share in the properties mentioned in the
 schedule.

¶20

 3. So far as the business is concerned, the
 business belonged to Chandrakant Shah and the same is
 presently conducted by defendant no.1. It would
 therefore be appropriate to appoint receiver in
 respect of the business with a condition that the
 defendant no.1 shall be appointed as an agent of the
 receiver without payment of any security or royalty
 until further orders. Issue of security and royalty

¶21

¶22

 would be considered at the time of the hearing of the

¶23

 motion. Hence, I pass the following order:-

¶24

 4. The defendants are restrained by an ad-interim

¶25

 injunction from transferring 1/4th share in any of
 the properties mentioned in the schedule. Court
 receiver is appointed as the receiver in respect of
 the business mentioned in prayer clause (b) of the
 motion with a condition that receiver shall appoint
 the defendant no.1 and its agent. The defendant no.1
 shall not be dispossessed if he executes an agreement
 with the receiver within a period of four weeks. If
 the defendant no.1 fails to execute the agreement,
 receiver shall be entitled to take possession of the

¶26

 business. It would not be necessary for the
 defendant no.1 to furnish any security or pay any

¶27

 royalty for the time being until further orders.

¶28

 Motion is made returnable in due course.

¶29

 D.G. KARNIK,J

Purna C. Shah v. Pankaj C. Shah and Ors. and Radha Vallab Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Purna C. Shah v. Pankaj C. Shah and Ors. and Radha Vallab Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sicom Limited Vs C.R.Mohan Rao and Ors.

The Paper Products Ltd. Vs Urisan Cosmetics Ltd.and Anr.

Stryker India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs M/S. Gaurav Enterprises and Anr.

Sicom Limited Vs Shailesh Shah and Ors.

Ahsha Chandan Vs Bhagwandas Hirji and Co.

Subhash S.Chandnani Vs M/S Amaratlal and Dhirajlal and Co.and Ors. S