9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Appointment of a Receiver for safeguarding properties - Dispute over properties of a Hindu Undivided Family - Allegations of disposal of properties in violation of court injunction - Decision on appointment of an Administrator for the properties Analysis: The judgment pertains to an appeal against the rejection of an application for the appointment of a Receiver for certain properties. The properties in question were part of a dispute regarding whether they belonged to the personal properties of an individual or to a Hindu Undivided Family. The eldest son was recognized as the successor, but there was a contention over the nature of the properties. It was noted that the properties had been disclosed as belonging to the Hindu Undivided Family in tax returns, raising the possibility that they were family properties. The court restrained the eldest son from dealing with specific properties, but it was alleged that he had disposed of some immovable properties and shares. Due to the risk of dissipation of assets, the court decided to appoint an Administrator to manage and safeguard the properties listed in the schedules to the plaint. The court found it just and proper to set aside the previous judgments and appoint an Administrator for the identified properties. The Administrator was tasked with managing, preserving, and safeguarding the properties, similar to the powers and duties of a Receiver. The Administrator was also granted the authority to engage professionals like lawyers, accountants, and valuers as necessary. Additionally, the Administrator was permitted to open bank accounts for the suit properties' income and expenses. Given the complexity of the task, the Administrator was allowed to seek further directions from the court as needed. Considering the substantial value of the properties involved, the court emphasized the importance of appointing an Administrator trusted by all parties. The case was adjourned to allow the parties to suggest a suitable candidate for the Administrator role; otherwise, the court would nominate a person. The appellant was directed to provide the initial funds for the Administrator, with future costs and expenses to be determined later. The appeal was allowed, with no specific order regarding costs.
|
