Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + SC Companies Law - 2001 (10) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2001 (10) TMI 1136 - SC - Companies LawWhether the balance of convenience is in favour of appointment of a Receiver for preserving as well as managing the property to save it from any anticipated loss till the decision of the suit? - Held that:- Need for or desirability of appointing the Receiver and granting of injunction, as prayed for, is concerned, the High Court does not seem to have taken into account the overall necessity to balance the interests of both parties. Since only the land has been said to have been brought into the partnership assets by the Plaintiffs husband with no other contribution of any further funds, that the land was got legally converted into one fit for commercial purposes of the Firm and the constructions were stated to have been put up only with the funds of the other partners or the builders, as the case may be, and the serious difficulties and loss to which the Firm and partners may be put into by freezing the day-to-day business activities of the Firm and the adverse impact on the credibility and reputation of the Firm, as a whole, do not seem to have engaged the attention of the High Court in passing the orders under challenge. The feasibility or otherwise of appointing Party Receiver and allowing them to carry on the day-to-day activities of the business subject to strict and effective control and accountability to the Court of the realizing of the business does not seem to have been considered at all before going out for the appointment of a third party Receiver and prohibiting any sales, completely. As long as the Arbitration clause exists, having recourse to Civil Court for adjudication of disputes envisaged to be resolved through arbitral process or getting any orders of the nature from Civil Court for appointment of Receiver or prohibitory orders without evincing any intention to have recourse to arbitration in terms of the agreement, may not arise. For all the reasons stated supra, the orders of the High Court as also that of the Trial Court set aised and remit the proceedings to the Trial Court which shall consider the matter afresh.
|