Dismissed

Pramod Kumar Makharia v. Dhruva Kumar Makharia and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC3 Oct 2007APP/98/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against order directing Court Receiver to handover possession of flat under a consent award. Court held consent award implemented correctly; belated property reference does not negate entitlement.

What did the court decide?

Court Receiver ordered to handover possession of flat to entitled person.

What the court decided

IN	THE ORDINARY	HIGH	COURT ORIGINAL	OF JU	DICATUR CIVIL	E AT JURI	BOMBAY SDICTION
		APPEAL		NO.98		OF	2007
			IN
COURT	RECEIV	ER’S	REPORT IN	DATED	10TH	JANUARY	2007
	ARBITRATI	ON	PETITION		NO.598	OF	2001
Pramod Kumar M Mr Dhruva Kum	akharia v/s ar Makharia an	d ors.			...Ap ...Res	pellant pondents
Mr Milind	Wasudeo	i/b	M/s	Deven	Dwarkad	as and	Partners
for							Appellant.
Mr Snehal	Shah	with	Mr A.K.	Goel	for	Respondent	No.1.
CORAM DATE	: D.K.	DE :	SHMUKH 3R	AND D	J.H. OCTO	BHATIA BER	JJ. 2007.

THE
ORDINARY

HIGH

COURT
ORIGINAL

OF
JU

DICATUR
CIVIL

E
AT
JURI

BOMBAY
SDICTION

APPEAL

NO.98

2007

COURT

RECEIV

ER’S

REPORT
IN

DATED

10TH

JANUARY

2007

ARBITRATI

PETITION

NO.598

2001

Pramod Kumar M
Mr Dhruva Kum

akharia
v/s
ar Makharia an

d ors.

...Ap
...Res

pellant
pondents

Mr
Milind

Wasudeo

i/b

M/s

Deven

Dwarkad

as
and

Partners

for

Appellant.

Mr
Snehal

Shah

with

Mr
A.K.

Goel

for

Respondent

No.1.

CORAM
DATE

:
D.K.

DE
:

SHMUKH
3R

AND
D

J.H.
OCTO

BHATIA
BER

JJ.
2007.

2.	Admitted facts are that by this appeal, the
order	of the learned Single Judge dated 19th	January
2007	is challenged. It is also an admitted	position
that	by that order, the Court Receiver’s report	dated
10th	January 2007 has been granted in terms of	the
prayer	made in that report. By that report, the	Court
Receiver	sought permission of the Court to	handover
possession	of the flat, which was with the	Court
Receiver,	to the person who has been held entitled	to
the	said flat under the consent award. Thus, by	the
impugned	order, the learned Single Judge has	directed
the	Court Receiver, who has already been	discharged
admittedly,	to handover flat to the person who has	been
held	entitled to the flat under the consent award.	It
is an	admitted position that the consent award is	signed
by t	he present appellant. It is also an	admitted
position	that according to that consent award, the	flat
goes	to the appellant and the other property which	is

Admitted facts are that by this appeal, the

order

of
the
learned
Single
Judge
dated
19th

January

2007

is
challenged.
It
is
also
an
admitted

position

that

by
that
order,
the
Court
Receiver’s
report

dated

10th

January
2007
has
been
granted
in
terms
of

the

prayer

made
in
that
report.
By
that
report,
the

Court

Receiver

sought
permission
of
the
Court
to

handover

possession

of
the
flat,
which
was
with
the

Court

Receiver,

to
the
person
who
has
been
held
entitled

the

said
flat
under
the
consent
award.
Thus,
by

the

impugned

order,
the
learned
Single
Judge
has

directed

the

Court
Receiver,
who
has
already
been

discharged

admittedly,

to
handover
flat
to
the
person
who
has

been

held

entitled
to
the
flat
under
the
consent
award.

is
an

admitted
position
that
the
consent
award
is

signed

by
t

he
present
appellant.
It
is
also
an

admitted

position

that
according
to
that
consent
award,
the

flat

goes

to
the
appellant
and
the
other
property
which

the	subject matter of the arbitration case	to	other
party.	All that the Court has done is it	has	directed
implement	ation of the consent award.	The	only
submission	made on behalf of the appellant	is	that
though	it is proved that the properties to	which	the
Court	Receiver’s report relates could not ha	ve been	the
subject	matter of the consent award because	there	was
one	more reference to arbitration, but	in	that
reference,	Arbitrators were not actually appo	inted.	In
our	opinion, the submission has no force	because	all
that	has been done by the impugned order is	that	the
consent	award has been implemented. Admitt	ed	position
is	that the present appellant never c	hallenged	the
consent	award, some other person had c	hallenged	the
consent	award, but that challenge has failed.	In	our
opinion,	no fault can be found with the order	of	the
learned	Single Judge directing the Court	Receiver	to
handover	possession of the properties to the	persons	who
are	entitled to these properties under	the	consent
award.	There is no substance in the appeal	.	Therefore,

the

subject
matter
of
the
arbitration
case

other

party.

All
that
the
Court
has
done
is
it

has

directed

implement

ation
of
the
consent
award.

The

only

submission

made
on
behalf
of
the
appellant

that

though

it
is
proved
that
the
properties
to

which

the

Court

Receiver’s
report
relates
could
not
ha

ve
been

the

subject

matter
of
the
consent
award
because

there

was

one

more
reference
to
arbitration,
but

that

reference,

Arbitrators
were
not
actually
appo

inted.

our

opinion,
the
submission
has
no
force

because

all

that

has
been
done
by
the
impugned
order
is

that

the

consent

award
has
been
implemented.
Admitt

position

that
the
present
appellant
never
c

hallenged

the

consent

award,
some
other
person
had
c

hallenged

the

consent

award,
but
that
challenge
has
failed.

our

opinion,

no
fault
can
be
found
with
the
order

the

learned

Single
Judge
directing
the
Court

Receiver

handover

possession
of
the
properties
to
the

persons

who

are

entitled
to
these
properties
under

the

consent

award.

There
is
no
substance
in
the
appeal

Therefore,

Pramod Kumar Makharia v. Dhruva Kumar Makharia and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Pramod Kumar Makharia v. Dhruva Kumar Makharia and 3 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

Mazgaon Dock Ltd. Vs Shivbrat Jagroop and Anr.

lalit construction and Ors. Vs manubhai hargovandas pated

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs Swastik Petrochem and Auto Industries and Ors.

SBI Capital Markets Ltd. Vs Glit Pack Ltd.

Shri J.K.Sharma Vs Mazda International Pvt. Ltd.

Pushpa P. Mulchandani and Ors. Vs Admiral Radhakrishin Tahiliani(Retd) and Ors.