Motion for appointment of a receiver and injunction was disposed without adjournment after defendants agreed to remove temporary structures; court found no case for receiver.
Motion disposed; no order as to costs. Receiver appointment declined.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
O.O.C.J.
NMS/4307/2008 IN SUIT NO.301 OF 1992
Nusli N. Wadia
vs Indiana Bakery & anr.
.... Plaintiffs
... Defendants
Ms. M. Godse i/b. S.B. Amin & Co. for the plaintiff.
Mr.P.M. Shah for the defendant .
CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.
DATE : 27th August, 2009
P.C.:
1 This motion is taken out by the plaintiff for various reliefs including appointment of Receiver and injunction. The dispute is with regard to the land is pending. However, as the defendants have put some temporary structure on the same land and, therefore, filed this motion on the apprehension that the defendants will create further rights and/or encroachment that will create complication in the matter. The defendants in their affidavit dated 09-02-2009 in paras 7 and 9 specifically averred as under:
“7 I say that pursuant to the D P Remarks given by the Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai dated 15.12.2007, alongwith the plan annexed thereto, the said property is partly reserved for public purpose for Recreation Ground, and therefore,
2
the question of Defendant No.2, carrying out the construction work in respect of the said property cannot and does not arise, and therefore, I say that Defendant No.2 has no intention to carry out the construction work till the said property continues as RG, as per Municipal Corporation Rules. I say that the Defendant No.2 has no intention to create any third party interest in respect of the said property.
9 .... I categorically deny that these Defendants are carrying out any construction activity on the Suit land as alleged by the plaintiffs.”
2 In view of this, I see there is nothing to consider the case of plaintiff to appoint the Receiver. This will serve the purpose for the time being.
3 The learned counsel appearing for the defendants, to the other submissions as raised by the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff with regard to the temporary structures, makes statement that the defendants will remove the structures within two weeks from today.
4 In view of above, the present Notice of Motion is disposed of. No order as to costs.
(ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)
Indiana Bakery
Anoop V. Mohta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
