Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: ... 1 ...
MHCC010002652019 Presented on : 07.01.2019
Registered on : 07.01.2019
Decided on : 10.02.2025
Duration : 06 01 03
Years Months Days
IN THE COURT OF CITY CIVIL FOR GREATER BOMBAY, AT BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 108 OF 2019
IN
SUIT NO. 3367 OF 2018
(CNR NO. MHCC010002652019)
1
2
Ashok Kumar Laxmansingh Galundia
Carrying on business at 114-116, Gr. Floor,
Ashok House, Sheikh Memon Street,
Mumbai 400 002.
Siddharth Javahirlal Jhaveri
Carrying on business at 71-73, 1st Floor,
Botawala Building, Lane Akhlesh Dinesh
Modi Marg, Opp. Stock Exchange,
Mumbai 400 001 for self, karta and
Manager of J G Jhaveri HUF on behalf of
member Mrs, Urvashi J Jhaveri of the said
HUF …. Plaintiffs
Versus
1
2
3
Chirag Ramesh Thakkar
Residing at 10, Bhulabhai Desai Road,
Kasturba Building, 1st Floor, Mahalaxmi
Mandir Compound, Mumbai 400 026.
Amrish Rasiklal Shah
Carrying on business at Shop No.8,
Ground Floor, 103-105, Shreenath
Bhavan, Old Hanuman Lane, Kalbadevi
Road, Mumbai 400 002.
Kamal Motilal Mehta
Residing at 206-207B, 2nd Floor, Kalpataru
-- 1 of 5 --
... 2 ...
Tower Habitat, Opp. Ashok Tower, Parel,
Mumbai 400 012, being occupant of 2nd
Floor, Ashok House, Kalbadevi, Mumbai
400 002.
AND
Manavadhikari Sanrakshan Sanghatna
through Sureshchand Gundecha, The
National General Secretary, South West
Zone, having their office at B-78, Shop
No.5, Acharchana Jayant CHSL, Sector
No.11, Shanti Nagar, Mira Road (East),
Mumbai 401 107
…. Defendants
…. Respondent
CORAM : HIS HONOUR THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE,
SHRI A.SUBRAMANIAM
C.R.NO..
: 19
DATE : 10th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
Appearances :-
Adv. Rohit Bandekar along with Adv. Anjali Ghelani i/b M/s. Mehta and
Girdharlal, Ld. Counsel for plaintiffs.
None for defendants.
ORAL ORDER
1. By present Notice of Motion, plaintiff prays for appointment of
Court Receiver of 2nd Floor as described in paragraph 1(a) of the
plaint and to appoint plaintiff as his agent on payment of
compensation, royalty, etc. As regards, order of injunction, same
has been dealt with. As regards order No.(c) evidence has to be
led in that regard and is kept open for consideration at the time
of decision of final reliefs.
2. The plaintiff has filed suit contending that he has pre-agreement
of conveyance of 1998 and defendant has subsequent deed of
conveyance and hence there was an order passed by Ld. Court on
29.09.2018 wherein it was pointed that status as regards title and
possession should be maintained. It is contended that same has
-- 2 of 5 --
... 3 ...
been violated and hence Receiver should be appointed.
3. Said Notice of Motion is resisted by contending that defendant
No.4 is not party to the suit and infact, it is plaintiff who is
placing different parties to show alleged breach of orders of this
Court. There is affidavit of defendant No.1 dated 07.07.2022
which is only of bare denial. Infact, they have denied the
existence of any order. Having considered various situations and
circumstances, it is seen that property is being changed hands
from time to time i.e. also violation of the orders of this Court to
maintain status quo as regards title and possession. Apparently,
new entities are seen to be present in said premises. The aspect of
Appointment of Court Receiver is settled down wherein rights of
parties are to be protected so much so that subject matter is
protected. The plaintiff should have prima-facie case. There are
conflicting claims and there is danger of loss to said property. The
order of Receiver will not be made where it has effect of
depriving a defendant of de-facto possession. The Court will
refuse to interfere unless this conduct has been free from blame.
Appointment of Court Receiver is considered to be one of the
harshest remedies. Having considered these circumstances, the
property is now well protected by an order wherein an interim
protection has been passed.
4. Having considered same, I find that there is some aspect of
dispute in possession of said premises. Not only has the
defendants seen to be changing parties and possession of
properties but they have received possession by way of
compromise in decree which is still subsisting. Considering these
circumstances, it would be improper to dispossess defendants by
appointing receiver. I hold that these circumstances so much so
-- 3 of 5 --
... 4 ...
that the delay of registration and purport of registration and
there being counter claims put by one of plaintiffs himself from
time to time, create serious doubt with regard to strong prima-
facie case required in case for Appointment of Court Receiver.
Thus, at this stage, I pass following order.
O R D E R
1. Notice of Motion No. 108 of 2019 in Suit No. 3367 of 2018 is
rejected.
2. The relief of Appointment of Court Receiver is hereby rejected.
3. The relief of holding defendants in contempt would be part of
evidence and final trial and considering same, same is placed
along with the suit.
4. Other reliefs being granted in other Notice of Motion stands
refused in this Notice of Motion.
5. Notice of Motion is disposed off accordingly.
DATE : 10.02.2025 (A.SUBRAMANIAM)
PRINCIPAL JUDGE
CITY CIVIL COURT, MUMBAI.
(JO CODE MH01711).
Dictated and transcribed on :10.02.2025
Checked and signed on : 17.02.2025
-- 4 of 5 --
... 5 ...
"CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER"
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
(Grade-III)
DATE : 17.02.2025 at 05.45 pm Mr. Mohit M. Patange
Name of the Judge (with Court no.) : SHRI A.SUBRAMANIAM. C.R.NO.19.
Date of pronouncement of judgment/order : 10.02.2025
Judgment/order signed by the P.O. on : 17.02.2025
Judgment/order uploaded on : 17.02.2025
-- 5 of 5 --