Dismissed

M/S. Victoria Timber Supplying Company v. M/S. Lockwood Industrial and Transport Services

Bombay HC15 Oct 2015AO/1110/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against an order denying the appointment of a Court Receiver in a suit for recovery of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, the High Court dismissed the appeal and disposed of the civil application, holding that the refusal was correct due to lack of documentary evidence of prior possession.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the impugned order rejecting the appointment of the Court Receiver was upheld; and the civil application was disposed of.

M/S. Victoria Timber Supplying Company Vs M/S. Lockwood… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

(1) (4) AOST 28142/15

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

Amk

¶4

APPEAL FROM ORDER (STAMP) NO. 28142 OF 2015 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION (STAMP) NO. 28145 OF 2015

¶5

M/s. Victoria Timber Suppling Co.

¶6

.. Appellant

¶7

Vs.

¶8

M/s. Lockwood Industrial & Transport Services & Anr.

¶9

.. Respondents

¶10

Mr. Chirag Balsara a/w. Mr. Jinal Gogri, Ms. Rujuta Patil i/b Negandhi Shah & Himayatullah for the Appellant. Mr. N. B. Khan for the Respondents.

¶11

CORAM : MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATE : 15th OCTOBER, 2015.

¶12

P.C.

¶13

Rule. Made returnable forthwith.

¶14

The appellant/plaintiff has filed the suit under Section 6 of the Specific Reliefs Act. It is claimed that it was forcibly dispossed on 28.112012 by defendant No.2. Defendant No.2 has claimed that it was in lawful possession under an oral license of 2010. An oral licencse could not have been granted in 2010. That aspect would be considered in the trial. The learned Judge has observed that the plaintiff has not produced any documentary evidence to show that the plaintiff was in actual use and occupation of the premises before the alleged dispossession. This is a fundamental and primary requirement in a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Reliefs Act.

¶15

The plaintiff applied for appointment of Court Receiver. Since the plaintiff did not show the plaintiff's possession by documentary evidence, the appointment of Court Receiver is rightly refused.

¶16

(2) (4) AOST 28142/15

¶17

An injunction against selling, alienating, transferring, encumbering and creating any third party rights has been already passed by the Small Causes Court. That injunction shall remain pending the suit.

¶18

It is for the plaintiff to prosecute its own suit expeditiously and diligently. The impugned order needs no interference. It is correct. The Appeal from Order is dismissed.

¶19

The Civil Application is also disposed of accordingly.

¶20

(ROSHAN DALVI J.)

M/S. Victoria Timber Supplying Company v. M/S. Lockwood Industrial and Transport Services

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Victoria Timber Supplying Company v. M/S. Lockwood Industrial and Transport Services

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

Smt. Vidhya Chandrakant Patil Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr.

Dr Kishinchand Motumal Foundation and Others Vs Palmland Co-Operative Housing Society Limited and Others

Asian Natural Resources (India) Ltd. (Bhatia International Ltd.)(Org. Claimant/Awd. Debtor) Vs Vitol S. a. (Org. Res. /Awd. Holder)

M/S. Victoria Timber Supplying Company Vs M/S. Lockwood Industrial and Transport Services

The Metro Unity Co.Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. (Applicant/Intervenor) Vs Mr. Vinit Harakchand Dedhiya (Orig. Pet.)

Mr. Vinit Harakchand Dedhiya Vs Bombay Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai