A cotpnental writ petition sought directions regarding the consideration of an application for appointment of a Receiver in a Section 92 CPC matter pending before the District Court, specifically questioning the necessity of prior sanction before entertaining such an application.
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 KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION No.20158 OF 2021 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN
2
KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.
3
SHREE BEERESHWARA (CHANNAKESHWARA) SWAMY SEVA TRUST, REPRESENTED BY TRUSTEES.
4
| 13. | H.ARUVA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS S/O. LATE HONNAIAH, R/O MOODALADODDI VILLAGE KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT. |
|---|---|
| 14. | M.K.ASHOK, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS S/O. LATE KEMPEGOWDA R/O MARALIGA VILLAGE MARALIGA POST, KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT. |
| 15. | BORAIAH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS S/O. LATE SIDDAIAH, R/O HEGGADEDODDI VILLAGE KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT. |
| 16. | JAVARAYI AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O. ARUVA HEGGADE R/O HEGGADEDODDI VILLAGE, KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT. |
| 17. | CHANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS S/O. CHIKKA HYDEGOWDA R/O. HEGGADEDODDI VILLAGE KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT. |
| 18. | M.D. KRISHNACHARI AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS S/O. DASACHARI R/O HEGGADEDODDI VILLAGE, |
| KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT. |
5
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS S/O. LATE HONNASHETTY R/O HEGGADEDODDI VILLAGE, MADDUR TALUK, KOPPA HOBLI, MANDYA DISTRICT.
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS S/O. LATE HONGANOORA HEGGADE R/O HEGGADEDODDI VILLAGE KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.
6
R/O MARALIGA VILLAGE MARALIGA POST, KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT. ... PETITIONERS [BY SRI. RAGHUPATHY T.N, ADVOCATE]
AND
7
5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA.
| 6. | THE TAHSILDAR MADDUR TALUK, MADDUR. |
|---|---|
| 7. | THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF SOCIEITIES, OFFICE SITUATED OPPOSITE TO DDPI OFFICE, STADIUM ROAD MANDYA. |
| 8. | M. BYRASHETTY @ KRISHNA S/O. LATE GAVISHETTY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS. |
| 9. | CHALUVEGOWDA S/O. LATE EAREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS. |
| 10. | VINAY .M.C S/O. CHANNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS. |
| 11. | M.H. LAKKAPPA S/O. HUTCHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS. |
| DEFENDANTS 8 TO 11 ARE RESIDENTS OF MARALIGA VILLAGE, KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT. |
8
….RESPONDENTS
[BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR G.V, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-4, SMT. JYOTHI BHAT, HCGP FOR R-5 TO R-7] (NOTICE TO R-8 TO R-12 STANDS DISPENSED WITH V/O/DATED 04.12.2021]
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PORTIONS OF THE ORDER SHEET DATED 24.08.2021 AND 07.09.2021 AT ANNEXURE-J IN MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.71/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MANDYA.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Sri.Raghupathy T.N and Sri.Chandrashekar G.V,
the learned counsel for the parties, are heard for the final disposal of the writ petition. The petitioners are some of the respondents in the proceedings in Misc.No.71/2020 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Mandya (for short, 'the district Court' ). The petitioners, apart from impugning the district Court’s
9
certain daily orders, pray for a direction to the district Court to decide their application before the other application are considered.
10
3. The petitioners' principal ground against the
application for appointment of a Receiver is that this application cannot be considered unless sanction is accorded as contemplated under Section 92 of CPC. The proceedings remaining on the board of the district Court, admittedly without an order on sanction as aforesaid, the petitioners have filed an application for consideration of the question viz ., whether the contesting respondents’ application under Order XL of CPC for appointment of a Receiver could be considered before such sanction is accorded.
counsel for the petitioners, argues in support of this petition contending that unless sanction as envisaged under Section 92 of CPC is accorded, no application can be entertained, including an application for appointment of a Receiver; Sri.Chandrashekar G.V, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents,
11
proposing to rely upon a certain set of decisions including the decision of the full bench of Allahabad High Court in Muhammad Ali Khan vs. Ahamad Ali Khan & others1 , refutes such submission asserting that the proposition that no application can be entertained unless sanction is accorded under Section 92 of CPC is accorded would not apply insofar as the application for appointment of a Receiver. Sri.Raghupathy T.N, in rejoinder, relies upon the decision of the Kerala High Court in Govindan vs. Koovalasseri Sree Mahadevar Kshetram Trust & others2 , to emphasis the principal argument canvassed in favour of the petitioners.
1 ILR 1945 Allahabad Page 818
2 AIR 2002 Kerala page 47
12
Court must forthwith answer this question in this regard in the light of the rival submissions with reasonable opportunity to both the petitioners and the contesting respondents within a time frame, and then decide the pending applications including the question on maintainability of the petition as canvassed by the petitioners.
ORDER
(i) The petition stands disposed of calling upon the district Court to first consider the question: whether the contesting
13
respondents’ application under Order XL of CPC for appointment of a Receiver must be considered only after the sanction is accorded, and decide the other questions/ applications later.
(ii) This question in any event shall be decided as aforesaid with reasonable opportunity to the contesting parties within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
order.
SD/- JUDGE
GH
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an application for appointment of a Receiver under Order XL Rule 1 of CPC can be entertained without prior sanction under Section 92 of CPC.
Whether the Continging Court must consider the contesting respondents' application for a Receiver before deciding other pending applications.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Muhammad Ali Khan vs. Ahamad Ali Khan & othersReferred¶65
ILR 1945 Allahabad Page 818 · Who else cites this
Govindan vs. Koovalasseri Sree Mahadevar Kshetram Trust & othersReferred¶65
AIR 2002 Kerala page 47 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 2 enactments
SHREE BEERESHWARA (CHANNAKESHWARA) SWAMY SEVA TRUST
G.N. SATHYA
K. DEVARAJU
H.K. SHIVAKUMAR
JEEVAN M.H
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT
B M SHYAM PRASAD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
