TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (9) TMI 1685
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s the arrears of royalty for the period from July, 2019 to August, 2022 @ Rs. 5,26,000/- p.m. (38 months) alongwith penalty/late fee immediately in the office of Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay. (c) Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay be directed to take forcible physical possession by break open lock of subject flat i.e. South Flat, Second Floor, with garage attached thereto situated at Mark Heaven Building, Apollo Bunder, P.J. Ramchandani Marg, Colaba, Mumbai- 400 039 from M/s. Liz Investment Pvt. Ltd. or whosoever found in possession with the help of police assistance. (d) In-charge of Colaba Police Station may be directed to provide necessary police assistance while taking forcible physical possession of suit flat. (e) Cost of this report be fixed and may be awarded at Rs. 5,000/- be recovered from M/s. Liz Investment Pvt. Ltd., Agent of Court Receiver or the same may be permitted to be appropriated from the funds available with the Court Receiver in the suit account. (f) Any other directions that the Hon'ble Court may deem fit." 3. On 29th March 2004, Liz Investment Private Limited executed the agreement as an agent of receiver subject to payment of an initial royal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ort of her contention, she relied on the following judgments: (a) State of Rajasthan vs. Babu Ram reported in (2007) 6 SCC 55. (b) Haryana State Cooperative Land Development Bank Ltd. vs. Haryana State Cooperative Land Development Banks Employees Union of India And Another reported in (2004) 1 SCC 574. (c) Shubhabrat Sudhanshu Dutta (Ex-director, Indo Bonito Multinational Ltd) and Another vs. Indo Bonito Multinational Ltd. reported in 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 5558. (d) Abhay Lodha Ex-Director of Topworth Steels And Power Pvt. Ltd. vs. Topworth Steels and Power Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 20250. (e) Mr. Anand Rao Korada Resolution Professional vs. M/s. Varsha Fabrics (P) Ltd. & Ors. in Civil Appeal Nos.8800-8801 of 2019 decided on 18th November 2019. (f) Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Company Limited vs. Hotel Gaudavan Private Limited And Others reported in (2018) 16 SCC 94. 10. Per contra, learned advocate for respondent Nos.2, 3, 7 and 8 opposed the petition, contending that once the receiver is put in possession of the property, his status is that of the custodian of the property and the agent of the receiver has no enforceable rights in the property. Theref....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... or Tribunals of co-ordinate or exclusive jurisdiction were to permit proceedings to go on independently of the Court which has placed the custody of the property in the hands of the Receiver, there was a likelihood of confusion in the administration of justice and a possible conflict of jurisdiction. The Courts represent the majesty of law, and naturally, therefore, would not do anything to weaken the rule of law, or to permit any proceedings which may have the effect of putting any party in jeopardy for contempt of court for taking recourse to unauthorised legal proceedings. It is on that very sound principle that the rule is based. Of course, if any Court which is holding the property in custodia legis through a Receiver or otherwise, is moved to grant permission for taking legal proceedings in respect of that property, the Court ordinarily would grant such permission if considerations of justice require it. Courts of justice, therefore, would not be a party to any interference with that sound rule. On the other hand, all Courts of justice would be only too anxious to see that property in custodia legis is not subjected to un-controlled attack, while, at the same time, protectin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for the use or continuation of the license, permit, registration, quota, concession, clearances or a similar grant or right during the moratorium period. (2) The supply of essential goods or services to the corporate debtor as may be specified shall not be terminated or suspended or interrupted during moratorium period. (2-A) Where the interim resolution professional or resolution professional, as the case may be, considers the supply of goods or services critical to protect and preserve the value of the corporate debtor and manage the operations of such corporate debtor as a going concern, then the supply of such goods or services shall not be terminated, suspended or interrupted during the period of moratorium, except where such corporate debtor has not paid dues arising from such supply during the moratorium period or in such circumstances as may be specified. (3) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply to- (a) such transactions, agreements or other arrangements as may be notified by the Central Government in consultation with any financial sector regulator or any other authority; (b) a surety in a contract of guarantee to a corporate debtor. (4) The order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....never acquire interest in the property irrespective of his long possession. The caretaker or servant has to give possession forthwith on demand. (3) The courts are not justified in protecting the possession of a caretaker, servant or any person who was allowed to live in the premises for some time either as a friend, relative, caretaker or as a servant. (4) The protection of the court can only be granted or extended to the person who has valid, subsisting rent agreement, lease agreement or licence agreement in his favour. (5) The caretaker or agent holds property of the principal only on behalf of the principal. He acquires no right or interest whatsoever for himself in such property irrespective of his long stay or possession." 19. On careful reading of Clause (5) of the Apex Court's judgment, it is clear that the caretaker is equated with the agent who holds property of the principal only on behalf of the principal. He acquires no right or interest whatsoever for himself in such property, irrespective of his long stay or possession. 20. Apart from the said judgment, it must be noted that the receiver's possession is that of the custodian on behalf of the parties t....