Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
BRIG. SAWAI BHAWANI SINGH
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
M/S INDIAN HOTELS COMPANY LTD. & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/11/1996
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
These appeals by special leave arise from the order of
the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench made on February
4, 1994 in Civil Misc. Appeal Nos. 294/88 and 311/68.
The admitted position is that pursuant to a agreement
the respondent are alleged to have come into possession of
the suit property for running the business or a hotel. It
is the case of the respondents their possession and running
of the business. On the other hand, it is the case of the
appellant that it is his exclusive property and the
respondents have no manner of right to come into possession.
Consequently, the respondents filed the suit for perpetual
injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with
their possession and running of the business. Pending suit,
both the parties came to file applications. The appellants
filed an application under Order 40, Rule 1 CPC for
appointment of a Receiver and respondent filed an
application under Order 39 Rule 1 for an ad interim
injunction. Though the trial Court had refused to issue the
direction for appointment of Receiver, it had issued an
injunction against the respondents restraining them from
running the business. But, on appeal, the district Court has
set aside the direction to run the business and dismissed
the application for appointment of Receiver which came to
be affirmed by the High Court. The High Court has set
aside the appointment of the Receiver qua the property.
Thus, these appeals by special leave.
In view of the fact that the respondents are
continuing, as alleged, to be under an agreement, they would
obviously act as custodia legis pending the suit as
Receivers on behalf of the Court. But any rights accrued or
claimed by them will be subject to the result in the suit.
The claim for enhancement of the rentals cannot be gone into
in this case and it is de hors the relief in the suit.
Under these circumstances, if it is permissible, appropriate
steps may be taken by the appellant in any appropriate
proceedings as per law.
With these observations, these appeals are dismissed.
No costs.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2