Patel (D) Th. LRS. & ANR. V. Sudha A.Chowgule & Ors.  INSC 506 (6
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1574 OF
2009 [Arising out of SLP (C) No.17162 of 2006] Parmanand Patel (Dead) by LR.
& Anr. .....Appellants Versus Sudha A. Chowgule & Ors. .....Respondents
WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1575 OF 2009 [Arising out of SLP (C) No.17396 of 2006]
11574 of 2009 @ S.L.P. (C) No.17162 of 2006
Parmanand Patel, since deceased, was a very wealthy person. He floated several
companies including the 5th respondent Company herein 2 known as M/s. Tulsidas
V. Patel Pvt. Ltd. Appellant Indu P. Patel is his widow. He also left behind
his daughters, viz., Sudha A. Chowgule and Jaya P. Patel, respondent nos.1 and
2 respectively. The company has its assets consisting of shares in different
companies as also immovable properties. It owns two multi-storeyed buildings
known as "Kanchanjunga" and "D-Tower Building" situated at
Peddar Road, Mumbai. It also owns a bungalow known as "Bella Vista"
situated at the same road.
to the plaintiffs (appellants herein), the approximate value of the assets held
by the company would be about Rs.367 crores. However, according to the 1st
defendant (respondent no.1 herein), the value of the properties owned by the
company and its subsidiaries would be about Rs.1120 crores.
Patel held 85% shares in the said company. The remaining 15% shares were held
by Indu Patel, Sudha and Jaya in equal proportion.
Parmanand Patel had been suffering from various diseases including some
neurological ones. For his treatment, he used to 3 frequently visit United
States of America accompanied by his wife and daughter Sudha.
Hemant Patel, a resident of Mombasa, Kenya is the brother of appellant no.2.
One Shirish Patel, who is a chartered accountant is the nephew of Parmanand
on 23rd January 2005 late Parmanand Patel executed a Will. He also signed
letters which are in the nature of gift and/or arrangements in regard to some
of his properties. It is also not in dispute that he had gifted two flats in
favour of the first appellant apart from making a mediclaim policy for her.
the Will is undated, it is accepted that the same was also executed on 23rd
January 2005, i.e., on the same date when the documents were executed. By
reason of the said Will, he is said to have bequeathed 50% of his property to
Sudha and 50% to Jaya. In a letter addressed to the 1st respondent, viz.,
Sudha, he is purported to have recorded that the he had given all his shares to
her. By reason of one of the letters addressed to the 1st respondent, he is
purported to have given all of his shares to her with a direction that she
should retain 46% to herself and give 39% to Jaya. The said gift is said to
have been made on certain conditions. A similar letter 4 was also addressed to
the 2nd appellant herein. It is, however, not in dispute that appellant no.2
did not agree to the aforementioned arrangement. The said Will was attested by
one Dr. Zarir F. Udwadia and one Sh. R.A. Shah, Advocate.
Indisputably, when the aforementioned purported Will was executed and the
letters were written, Jaya was in the United States of America.
Patel was also in United States. As appellant no.2 admittedly did not agree to
the said purported mode and manner of disposition of properties by her husband,
another document was prepared on 23rd January 2005 itself, which reads as under
WHOMSOEVER IT MAY CONCERN All the documents which I have signed today shall be
reviewed by my nephew Mr. Shirish Patel (C.A.). His suggestion will be
incorporated in these documents. My (Mrs. Indu Patel) 5% interest in the
Tulsidas V. Patel will be given equally to my daughter Sudha and Jaya upon my
P.T. Patel I.P. Patel Mumbai Dated 23.1.2005 Sd/- Solicitor."
said document was signed not only by Parmanand Patel and Indu Patel but also by
Shri R.A. Shah, the Solicitor.
developments took place thereafter. A meeting of the company was held wherein
Indu Patel was shown to have been present, However, from perusal of a letter
dated 01st September 2005, it now transpires that Indu Patel was given leave of
absence on that date. In the said meeting various decisions were taken, namely,
transfer of shares, appointment of Chairman, custody of the minute book,
adoption of the company etc. It was claimed by Sudha by reason of resolution
adopted in the said meeting, became the Chairman of the company.
again, a Board meeting of the Company was called on 25th January 2005 which was
attended only by Sudha and Parmanand Patel.
of Shiraj Salelkar, an Advocate being an Assistant to Mr. R.A. Shah and Ms.
Usha Moraes as Directors in the Board of the company was informed to the Board
and a resolution was adopted appointing them as Additional Director of the
company. Yet again, a meeting of the Board was held on 06th March 2005 wherein
Sudha and Parmanand Patel were present.
said meeting, resignation of Ms. Usha Moraes was accepted and in 6 his place
Arjun A. Chowgule, son of Sudha, was appointed as Additional Director of the
company. A resolution was also adopted with regard to the operation of the bank
account in terms whereof Sudha was permitted to operate the bank account singly
and others were permitted to operate only with her. Another purported meeting
was held on 21st April 2005 wherein Sudha, Parmanand Patel and Arjun Chowgule
were present. In the said meeting, on the alleged ground that Jaya Patel
remained absent from the Board meetings which had taken place for a period of 3
months from January 2005 to March 2005, applying the provisions of Section
283(1)(g) of the Companies Act, it was resolved that she would be deemed to
have vacated the office of Director of the company with immediate effect.
appellant herein alleging that her husband Parmanand Patel was unable to manage
the affairs of the company and his properties, filed a suit on his behalf in
the original side of the Bombay High Court on or about 12th September 2005
praying, inter alia, for the following reliefs :
that it be declared that the document purporting to be the Will dated 23rd
January 2005 of Plaintiff No.1, being Exhibit "G" hereto, the two
letters dated 23rd January 2005, being Exhibits "J" and "K"
hereto and the purported gift / transfer of shares of Defendant No.5 by
Plaintiff No.1 in favour of Defendant No.1 as recorded therein are null, void
and of no effect in law;
that Defendant No.1 be ordered and decreed to deliver up the said document
purporting to be the Will dated 23rd January 2005 of Plaintiff No.1, being
Exhibit "G" hereto, the two letters dated 23rd January 2005, being
Exhibits "J" and "K" hereto for cancellation and the same
be cancelled by and under the orders and decree of this Hon'ble Court;
the purported transfer of 85% shares held by Plaintiff No.1 in Tulsidas V.
Patel Pvt. Ltd., Defendant No.5 in favour of Defendant No.1 be set aside and
cancelled and Defendant No.1 be ordered and decreed, if necessary, to transfer
the said shares to the Plaintiff No.1;
Defendant No.5 be ordered and directed to record Plaintiff No.1 as the holder
of the 85% shares in the records of Defendant No.5 and for that purpose to do
all acts, deeds and things and make proper entries in its records as may be
it be declared that the appointments of Defendant No.3 and 4 as directors on
the Board of Directors of Tulsidas V. Patel Pvt. Ltd.., Defendant No.5 are not
alternately, Defendant No.3 and 4 be removed as directors from the Board of
Directors of Defendant No.5;
the appointment of Defendant No.1 as the Chairperson of the Board of Directors
of Defendant No.5 be set aside;
Defendant No.1 be directed to return the records, registers, minutes books and
books of accounts of the Defendant No.5 company to its registered office;"
prayers for grant of interim relief were also prayed for.
learned Single Judge of the High Court passed an interim order on 16th
September 2005 relevant portion whereof reads as under :
However, I have considered the aforesaid contention in the light of the
allegation made in the plaint and large number of material produced pertaining
to mental and physical health of plaintiff no.1. I have also taken into
consideration the fact that the right claimed by defendant no.1 in respect of
the said 85% share in the defendant no.5 company is based on a gift deed. In my
opinion till the hearing and final disposal of the motion said shares are
required to be frozen and kept intact till the dispute is decided either way at
the hearing of the motion. It is not possible to permit defendant no.1 at this
stage to act as if there is a valid gift in her favour of the said 85% share in
the defendant no.5 company merely on the ground that there are certain
documents produced which are supposed to have been executed by plaintiffs
during the contemporaneous period during the time the said gift deed is
supposed to have been executed. Motion undoubtedly requires a deeper
the hearing and final disposal of the motion, none of the parties to the
present suit shall exercise any right whatsoever in respect of the said 85%
shares which are the subject matter of the gift deed in favour of defendant
no.1 in defendant no.5 company.
3. In the
light of the rival claims about the mental health of the plaintiffs, I direct
constitution of panel of Doctors drawn from J.J. Hospital, Bombay Hospital and
Lilavati Hospital dealing with psychiatrist and neurological department who
will examine the said plaintiff and make report directly to the court.
Plaintiff no.2 shall pay the necessary cost, charges and expenses in respect
thereof. Prothonotary and Senior Master, High Court, Mumbai is directed to
intimate the respective Hospital to nominate one doctor from each of the said
Hospitals for the purpose of aforesaid test of the plaintiff no.1. The report
of such panel will be furnished within 4 weeks from today.
Bank of India is directed to continue the arrangement of joint operation of the
bank account between defendant no.1 and 2. In so far as assets of the company
is concerned, plaintiff no.2 and defendant no.2 shall maintain the said assets
of the company as it is and will not sell or dispose of the assets or create
any third party rights except in ordinary course of business.
no.2 and defendant no.2 shall keep inform defendant no.1 about the business
decisions if any, taken by them. Motion made returnable in usual course."
intra court appeal was preferred thereagainst by Sudha.
Keeping in view the directions issued by the learned Single Judge in paragraph
3 of the order dated 16th September 2005, the learned Judges of the Division
Bench interacted with Parmanand Patel (since deceased) in 10 their chambers and
found him totally incoherent and confused. In the aforementioned situation, by
an order dated 11th October 2005, directed as under :
After hearing both parties, we direct constitution of a panel of Doctors from
K.E.M. Hospital, Bombay Hospital and Lilavati Hospital from their respective
departments of Psychiatry and Neurology. That is to say from each hospital one
doctor each from the aforesaid department shall examine respondent No.1 from
Psychiatric and Neurological point of view, with regard to alleged mental
disorder of respondent No.1. We request the panel of Doctors to expeditiously
give their report to this Court.
Learned counsel for both appellant and respondents state that they will render
all assistance to the panel and bear the expenses of Doctors' fees. Needless to
state that the aforesaid panel of Doctors while examining respondent No.1 will
not be influenced in any manner by our prima facie view as a lay persons. Place
the matter on board on 27th October 2005."
Indisputably, pursuant thereto or in furtherance thereof, Parmanand Patel was
examined by a panel of six doctors. They examined him on 07th December 2005. So
far as his neurological examination is concerned, the doctors awarded 24 points
(wrongly stated to be 23) out of 30 indicating a minimal Cognitive Deficit of
functioning. He was also examined in regard to his mental state. It was concluded:
It is the
unanimous feeling of the six members of this panel that Mr. Patel is suffering
from definite deficit, in his cognitive functions and also his working memory,
which lead to an impairment in all aspects of independent functioning.
Memory Deficits are significant, in both domains of registration and recall of
new memories as well as in the retrieval of his past memories, specifically
pertaining to his personal memories of his Family and Property holdings and his
Cognitive Deficits also lead to improper decisions and behaviors towards
people, which can cause problems with caregivers at this stage.
is incapable of taking executive decisions regarding his routine living
activities at home and there is a definite impression of his inability to
function independently in a financial or other business activity.
also obvious that as Mr. Patel is incapable of living by himself in an
unsupervised environment, he will need to be monitored, supervised, and
assisted, even in his routine Activities of Daily Living, at all times."
Parmanand Patel expired on 20th November 2006. An application for amendment of
the plaint was filed. Leave was granted to amend the plaint.
also allowed to be transposed to the category of plaintiff from the category of
defendant by an order dated 10th January 2008.
interim application came up for hearing before a Division Bench of the High
Court. By reason of the impugned judgment, it was directed:
In the circumstances, to safeguard the interest of all the parties, we pass the
following interim order which should meet the ends of justice :- (1) The
Receiver, High Court, Bombay is appointed as Receiver for the assets of
Tulsidas V. Patel (Pvt.) Ltd. and Defendant No.1 (Sudha) will act as an Agent
of the Receiver. No steps will be taken hereafter based on the documents of
gift dated 23rd January 2005. Actions taken so far will also be subject to the
result of the suit.
Receiver will appoint a Chartered Accountant from his panel who will first get
an inventory of the properties of Tulsidas V. Patel (Pvt.) Ltd. done in four
weeks hereafter. The foregoing clauses will become operational only thereafter.
Defendant No.1 (Sudha) will be permitted to execute all necessary agreements on
behalf of the Company for the purposes of safeguarding the assets thereof. She
will not encumber nor sell any of the assets of the Company nor will she create
any third party rights in any manner though she will be at liberty to give the
properties/flats on licence basis. The terms of the document of licence and
particularly the licence fee will have to be approved by the above referred
Defendant No.1 (Sudha) will be permitted to operate the bank account of the
Company with Union Bank of India and the restriction 13 to operate the same
only along with Jaya will stand vacated.
Defendant No.1 (Sudha) will deposit all the earnings of the Company in its
account with Union Bank of India and will also honour the liabilities thereof.
Company will bear all the medical and travel expenses of Plaintiff No.1
(Parmanand Patel) and Plaintiff No.2 (Induben) as and when required.
the income of the Company, after the liabilities are met, 33% will be made over
to Jaya (Defendant No.2) and 5% to Plaintiff No.2 (Induben). Sudha will be
permitted to retain 33% of the income for herself. The remaining portion of the
income will be invested in fixed deposits with Union Bank of India from time to
time. The aforesaid payments and investments will be made by taking the
accounts at the end of every 6 months. The accounts will be got approved from
the above Chartered Accountant.
Defendant No.1 (Sudha) will render all necessary information to the Receiver
and the Chartered Accountant and copies of these accounts will be made over to
Defendant No.2 (Jaya) and Plaintiff No.2 (Induben).
payments, receipts and investments will be without prejudice to the rights and
contentions of all the parties and subject to the outcome of the suit.
Plaintiff No.1 will continue to remain in possession of the Bella Vista
Bungalow till 14 the hearing and final disposal of the suit.
No.2 (Induben), Defendant No.2 (Jaya) and her husband and daughters will be
permitted to stay with him under the orders of Court.
the properties and assets of the Company will continue to remain in the name of
the Company and all agreements concerning them will continue to be entered into
only in the name of the Company.
Defendant No.1 (Sudha) will deposit an amount of Rs.50,000/- with the Receiver
from the Company's account towards charges and expenses of the Chartered
Accountant and the Receiver to begin with.
and charges of the Receiver and the Chartered Accountant will be borne from the
Company's account from time to time."
Mukul Rohatgi and Mr. Anil Divan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellants, inter alia, would submit :
meticulously planned the entire strategy to take control over the company in a
systematic manner beginning from December 2004 when a second ration card was
were said to have been lost and steps were taken even to have another common
seal, the company was proclaimed to be the owner of the bungalow and Parmanand
Patel became a 15 licencee in the said premises for a maximum period of one
year and ultimately not only the purported Will was executed but also letters
of gifts were prepared and addressed to Sudha and Jaya followed by various
Board meetings, from a perusal whereof it would appear that she could acquire
complete control over the company and, thus, the interim arrangement must be
Keeping in view the fact that Sudha is a party to forgery of documents, she
should not have been appointed as an agent of the receiver particularly when
the Court had found out a prima facie case in favour of the 2nd appellant.
of the basic legal principles, as propounded by this Court in various decisions
is that when a Will is unnatural surrounded by suspicious circumstances and
does not satisfy the conscience of a Court, such a Will cannot be accepted.
High Court should not have shown any indulgence in favour of Sudha. The reports
of the doctors as also the observations made by the Division Bench of the High
Court in its order dated 16th September 2005 itself would suggest that late
Parmanand Patel was not mentally fit to take any decision 16 by himself and
thus no credence could have been given to the documents including the Will
executed on 23rd January 2005.
unnatural, the learned counsel argued that Parmanand Patel would consult Shri
R.A. Shah who had been appearing against the company and in fact as lawyer for
the companies represented by Sudha and her husband.
Rohington Nariman and Mr. C.A. Sundaram, learned senior counsel appearing for
the respondents, on the other hand, would submit i. The Will and the letters of
giving having been attested by two independent persons, viz., Dr. Hemant Patel
and and R.A. Shah and one of them being the brother of Indu Patel must be held
to have been executed by late Parmanand Patel by way of family arrangement.
Patel having been provided with sufficient income as two flats had been given
to her as also a third flat in the joint name of the appellants herein, the
annual income whereof would be about Rs.60 lacs per month, the decision of late
Parmanand Patel that his property should be divided half and half between his
two daughters cannot be said to be either illegal or unfair.
17 Such a
process, according to learned counsel, started in 2003 as Sudha had been
accompanying him for his treatment to other parts of the country as also United
States. The mental condition of the testator having been found to be good by
the doctors, as would appear from the certificate issued by Dr.
Black of Brigham And Women's Hospital, Boston on 21st January 2005 who examined
him in October 2004 at Jaipur, certificate dated 28th January 2005 issued by
Dr. M.M. Bahadur, Cons Nephorologist at Jaslok Hospital, certificate dated 30th
January 2005 issued by Prof. R. Gokal, Dept. of Renal Medicine, Manchester
Royal Infirmity and certificate dated 01st March 2005 issued by Dr. Ajay Singh,
Harvard Medical School, would clearly go to show that he had a good mental
faculty. In fact, he attended a meeting of George Noble Pvt. Ltd. along with
his nephew Shirish Patel on 03rd February 2005. It has also been brought to our
notice that vide letter dated 13th April 2005 addressed to Subhash Patel,
Parmanand Patel refused the letter of resignation submitted by him which would
show that he was in complete control of the situation and knew what he had been
Brother of Indu Patel, viz., Dr. Hemant Patel, a practising surgeon at Mombasa
visited the family and only to him late Parmanand Patel expressed his intention
to divide the assets/shareholding of the company equally between his two
daughters during his lifetime and to divide his other assets after his death
and for the said purpose he wanted such separation to be done during his
lifetime and in a tax efficient manner. It was pursuant to the said desire, the
aforementioned documents were prepared. The factual scenario would furthermore
be apparent from a letter written to Indu Patel by her brother on 29th January
Surrender of tenancy in respect of the bungalow `Bella Vista' was necessitated
because all formalities were required to be complied with and it was never the
intention of the first respondent to drive her parents out therefrom as would
appear from a statement made by he counsel before the Division Bench. v. The
order of the Division Bench of the High Court having safeguarded the interest
of all concerned and having been passed as the first respondent had been acting
as Chairperson 19 of the company for a long time, the impugned judgment should
not be interfered with particularly when she is required to operate not only
under the receiver but also in close collaboration with a chartered accountant.
Although, the learned counsel for the parties have addressed us at great length
and in fact we have been taken through the minutest details of the relevant and
important documents filed and relied on by the parties, we are of the opinion
that it would not be prudent on our part to discuss the same in great details.
receiver, having regard to the provisions contained in O.40 R.1 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, is appointed only when it is found to be just and convenient
to do so.
of a receiver pending suit is a matter which is within the discretionary
jurisdiction of the Court. Ordinarily the Court would not appoint a receiver
save and except on a prima facie finding that the plaintiff has an excellent
chance of success in the suit. It is also for the plaintiff not only to show a
case of adverse and conflict claims of property but also emergency, danger or
loss demanding immediate action. Element of danger 20 is an important
consideration. Ordinarily, a receiver would not be appointed unless a case has
been made out which may deprive the defendant of a de facto possession. For the
said purpose, conduct of the parties would also be relevant.
respondent did not question that part of the order of the Division Bench
whereby an Official Receiver of the High Court has been appointed as receiver
in respect of the suit properties. We would, therefore, proceed on the premise
that a strong prima facie case has been found in favour of the appellants.
hereto have brought out medical reports in respect of late Parmanent Patel
which give us different pictures about his mental condition at the relevant
time. It is no doubt true that the relevant date for determining the mental
faculty of late Parmanand Patel would be 23rd January 2005, but for arriving at
the said conclusion his mental condition, both prior thereto and later, would
be relevant. Prima facie, appellant no.2 was compelled to file a suit in order
to protect the interest of her husband.
entertained and interim order was passed. The Division Bench, in order to
satisfy itself, called late Patel in their chamber. He was found to be totally
confused and incoherent. It is in the aforementioned situation, a 21 panel of
doctors was constituted for examining him. We have noticed the report of the
said panel of doctors.
property in suit is worth more than Rs.1000 crores. There are several
companies. Respondent no.5-company herein own huge properties.
two multi-storeyed buildings which are occupied by a large number of tenants.
Each of the heirs and legal representatives of late Parmanand Patel, in the
event he is found to have died intestate, would have 1/3rd share. Appellant
no.2 does not claim exclusive interest in respect of the flats purported to
have been gifted in her favour by her late husband. A statement has also been
made on her behalf of the first respondent herein that she would have no
objection to share the entire property half and half between herself and
may also place on record that several attempts have been made for
reconciliation between the parties. At the instance of the learned senior
counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, the dispute was referred to a
learned mediator. Parties, however, for reasons best known to them and despite
the fact that for all intent and purport the dispute hinges on a narrow
pedestal, have not been able to settle their disputes.
therefore, appears that there is a lot of controversy between the parties.
There is also a lot of bad blood.
High Court in its impugned judgment proceeded on the premise that prima facie
late Parmanand Patel had a desire to settle the properties in favour of his two
daughters in equal shares. He made a meticulous plan therefor which would be
tax efficient. To the aforementioned extent, 1st respondent's case appears to
have been supported by Dr. Hemant Patel, brother of Indu Patel herself. But,
with respect, what was not taken into consideration by the Division Bench of
the High Court was that admittedly two sets of papers were prepared - one on
the basis that the 2nd appellant would surrender her 5% share in the company.
Late Parmanand Patel even signed the first set of papers. She, however, refused
to part with her share in the company. It was then the second set of documents
were executed which not only included the undated Will but also the two letters
addressed to Sudha and Jaya respectively. The said letters prima facie had been
drafted in a manner which would ultimately be beneficial to the interest of
Sudha alone. Presumably, at that point of time the 2nd appellant expressed her
stray resent in relation to the whole affair. Rightly or wrongly, she was not
ad idem with her husband. It gave rise to execution of a third set of document
which was signed not only by late Parmanand Patel but also the 23 appellant
no.2 conferring a power of review upon Shirish Patel. It was also attested by
R.A. Shah. We have been given to understand that the said Shirish Patel alone
was helping late Parmanand Patel in running the business. It is in the
aforementioned context that letter dated 26th August 2005 written by Shirish
Patel to R.A. Shah assumes importance. It reads as under :
to my letter dated 25th August 2005, I wish to confirm that all the documents
purported to have been executed on January 23, 2005 by Parmanandkaka dealing
with his assets and the acts of Sudha pursuant thereto are detrimental to the
interest of Parmanandkaka and therefore he should not be bound by the
and the letters of gift as evidenced by the two letters dated 23rd January 2005
were subject to review by Shirish Patel. He having opined that the arrangement
being detrimental to the interest of Parmanand Patel, in our opinion, should be
given primacy at this stage. We would, however, refrain ourselves from making
any comment upon the correctness or otherwise of the one set of reports
submitted by the medical experts in preference to another. The case of the 1st
respondent may or may not be correct. It is possible, as has been contended by
her, that late Parmanand Patel had a desire to divide the property in equal
shares between her two 24 daughters. However, for the purpose of passing an
interlocutory order, we may proceed on the premise that the rights of the parties
would have to be considered in terms of the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act,
1956, that is, on the assumption that Parmanand Patel
died intestate in which event share of each of his heirs would be one third.
Distribution of property amongst the children by the parents, however, may be
found to be desirable if the mother wants to retain her share and deal with the
same on her own.
exception can be taken thereto. Ordinarily, a Court shall presume the existence
of a right in the property of the deceased in favour of the 2nd appellant
herein unless a strong prima facie case is made out that she had been deprived
therefrom. It is not for the court to consider as to whether her stand is fair
to one of her daughters or not. Even if it be held that the Will and the
letters had been executed by late Parmanand Patel in sound disposing mind,
conduct of Sudha cannot be lost sight of. Sudha might be accompanying her
father to various parts of the country as also abroad to see that Parmanand
Patel received best of the treatment, but then Jaya had also been residing in
the same bungalow with her father despite her marriage in 1979. Above all, 2nd
appellant had also not only been looking after her husband but also
accompanying him for his treatment wherever it was found to be necessary. We,
as at present advised, do not wish to 25 comment upon the contentions raised
before us that the Will was not only unnatural but was surrounded by a large
number of suspicious circumstances. Such a question would fall for consideration
of the High Court in the suit.
therefore, having taken into consideration all aspects of the matter, are of
the opinion that it is a fit case where the High Court should have appointed a
receiver and/or an administrator with suitable directions.
to the aforementioned extent, intend to interfere with the order of the High
Court as Sudha alone had been given exclusive powers not only to execute
documents but also induct tenants. The aforementioned job, in our opinion,
keeping in view the relationship between the parties should better be left with
an officer of the Court who would be subject to directions as may be issued by
the High Court from time to time.
the matter relating to imposition of conditions and/or appointment of chartered
accountant or others to assist the receiver completely at the hands of the High
Court. In a case of this nature, however, the official receiver himself may not
be appointed as receiver.
Before parting with this case, however, we may place on record that Mr. Hemant
Choudhari, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.6- Bank submitted that
appellants and the respondent-companies owned by appellants and the first
respondent even borrowed a sum of about Rs.5 crore. The High Court may consider
desirability of protecting the interest of the bank also.
appeal is allowed to the aforementioned extent and with the aforementioned
observations and directions. C.A.No. 1575 of 2009 @ S.L.P. (C) No.17396 of 2006
view of the order passed in the appeal arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.17162 of
2006, this appeal would also stand disposed of on the above terms.
of these appeals shall abide by the result of the suit.
............................J. [S.B. Sinha]
............................J. [Cyriac Joseph]
March 6, 2009.