Partly allowed

Baliram Balrishna Pansare v. Devdas Krishnaant Pansare and Ors.

Bombay HC22 Sept 2009NMS/794/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Notice of Motion in a partition suit, the Single Judge examined a plea for appointing a receiver and granting injunction to restrain alienation of tenanted properties. The court allowed the prayer for injunction but did not appoint a receiver.

What did the court decide?

Notice of Motion allowed in terms of prayer (b) for injunction restraining alienation/transfer of properties; liberty granted to apply for disclosure of information.

Baliram Balrishna Pansare Vs Devdas Krishnaant Pansare and Ors. — Partition | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 794 OF 2008 IN SUIT NO. 192 OF 2008

¶4

Baliram Balkrishna Pansare...Plaintiff

¶5

vs.

¶6

Devdas Krishnakant Pansare & Ors....Defendants

¶7

Mr.Uttangale for the Plaintiff.
Mr.Devdas Pansare � Defendant No.1 present in
person.

¶8

Mr.Rajesh Datar for Defendant No.7.

¶9

 CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J.

¶10

DATED : SEPTEMBER 22, 2009

¶11

P.C. :-

¶12

1Heard Counsel for the plaintiff and Counsel

¶13

for defendant no.7,

¶14

2The plaintiff has filed affidavit of

¶15

service. It is taken on record. None appears on
behalf of the defendants no.1 to 6, 8 and 9. The

¶16

¶17

plaintiff is seeking the following reliefs :-

¶18

a)that pending the hearing and final
disposal of the suit, the Court Receiver,
High Court, Bombay be appointed Receiver of
the suit properties described in Exhibit B
to the Plaint with all powers under Order
XL, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908;

¶19

b)that pending the hearing and final
disposal of the suit, the Defendants, their
agents, servants or any other persons
claiming through or under them be restrained
by a mandatory order and injunction of the
Hon�ble Court from in any manner developing,
disposing of, alienating, creating fresh
tenancies, encumbering and/or creating any
third party interest in respect of the
properties more particularly described in
Exhibit B to the Plaint in any manner
whatsoever;

¶20

c)ad-interim and interim reliefs in
terms of prayers (a) and (b);

¶21

d)costs of the Notice of Motion be
provided;

¶22

e)such further and other orders be
passed and directions be given and reliefs
be granted in the interest of justice and
equity.�

¶23

¶24

3It is submitted that most of the properties

¶25

are tenanted properties and the defendant no.1 is
transferring the tenancies in respect of the said
properties and creating third party rights. The
plaintiff admittedly has 50% share in the said
property.

¶26

4Counsel for the plaintiff submits that the
Court Receiver may be appointed for the purpose of
collecting rent and from preventing defendants from
creating any third party rights and transferring the
tenancy.

¶27

appears that the plaintiff and defendants have share
in the suit property. The interest of the plaintiff
can be protected by granting prayer clause (b).

¶28

6Hence, Notice of Motion is allowed in terms

¶29

¶30

of prayer clause (b) and is, accordingly, disposed
of.

¶31

7Liberty is granted to the parties to apply.

¶32

Liberty is granted to the plaintiff to take out
Notice of Motion seeking disclosure of information
from defendant no.1.

Baliram Balrishna Pansare v. Devdas Krishnaant Pansare and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baliram Balrishna Pansare v. Devdas Krishnaant Pansare and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Elel Hotels and Investments Ltd. Vs Mr.Shyamlal Bhajanlal Luthria

Ms.Josephine C.Spencer and Ors. Vs the Indian Airlines Corpnand Ors.

M/S. Elel Hotels and Investment Ltd. Vs S.K.Thakkar and Ors.

Ganesh Balu Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Govind Ashok Shahane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajendra Yeshwant Shah and Anr. Vs Gillette India Ltd. and 45 Ors.