Dismissed

Majid a.Oomerbhoy v. Rashid Sattar Oomerbhoy and Ors.

Bombay HC18 Aug 2005NMS/743/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a notice of motion seeking to direct royalty payment for a flat occupation period. The court held that royalty can only be claimed when a defendant is appointed as an agent of the Court Receiver, noting the defendant was never so appointed.

What did the court decide?

Disgssed claim for royalty; defendant to pay court costs of Rs. 7,500 to Maharashtra Legal Aid Services Authority.

Majid a.Oomerbhoy Vs Rashid Sattar Oomerbhoy and Ors. — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

 ORDINARY AND ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.743 OF 2002

¶4

IN

¶5

 SUIT NO.4913 OF 2000

¶6

 Najid A.Oomerbhoy and Ors. .. Plaintiffs

¶7

Vs.

¶8

 Rashid S.Oomerbhoy and Ors. .. Defendants

¶9

 Mr.Sanjay Jain i/b Thakar Jariwala and Associates
 for the plaintiffs

¶10

 CORAM : S.U.KAMDAR, J

¶11

DATED : 18TH AUGUST, 2005

¶12

 P.C.:

¶13

 1. By the present motion the applicants are

¶14

 seeking that this court should direct the Court
 Receiver to fix the royalty/compensation in respect

¶15

 of the flat situated at Benhur, 32, Narayan
 Dabholkar Road, Mumbai 400 026 for a period of
 6.12.00 to 11.5.01 and that Royalty be directed to
 be paid by the plaintiffs to the Court Receiver.

¶16

 2. It is an admitted position that though the
 Court Receiver was appointed on 6.12.00, he took
 possession of the premises only on 11.5.01 and on

¶17

 11.5.01 as and when the Receiver took possession,
 plaintiffs handed over the possession and did not
 get himself appointed as an agent of the Receiver.
 The question of payment of royalty arises only when
 the person is appointed as an agent of the Court
 Receiver. The learned counsel for the defendant
 no.1 however relies upon the order passed by this
 court being dt.2.8.01 particularly para 4 thereof

¶18

 in which the court has stated that after the
 Receiver takes possession defendant no.1 should be
 appointed as an agent on usual terms and
 conditions.

¶19

 3. It is not in dispute that defendant no.1

¶20

 was never appointed as agent of the Court Receiver
 and thus, the present Notice of Motion is most
 frivolous and total abuse of process of court. In
 an event if the defendant no.1 is seeking claim of
 wrongful occupation and possession of the property
 then such order can be passed at the final hearing
 of the suit by way of decre for means profit.
 Motion thus dismissed. Defendant no.1 to pay the
 cost of the motion quantified at Rs.7,500/- to the
 Maharashta Legal Aid Services Authority.

Majid a.Oomerbhoy v. Rashid Sattar Oomerbhoy and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Majid a.Oomerbhoy v. Rashid Sattar Oomerbhoy and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bank of India Vs Associated Constn. and Ors.

Ashokkumar v Pasad Vs Sahadev v Jadeja

Bobcards Limited Vs Sandeep M.Talim

Majid a.Oomerbhoy and Ors. Vs Rashid S.Oomerbhoy and Ors. C.R.

Dr. Nellie R. Noble Vs K.R. Noble and Ors.

Bhartiben D. Goragandhi Vs State Bank of India