18 November 1996
Supreme Court
Download

BRIG. SAWAI BHAWANI SINGH Vs M/S INDIAN HOTELS COMPANY LTD. & ORS.


1

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.

2

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2