Synopsis

The appellant/plaintiff sought appointment of Court Receiver to take possession of a shop (Suit Shop No. 15A/16) from respondent No. 2, who was occupying it as Agent of the Court Receiver under an undertaking dated 17.07.1986. The undertaking required respondent No. 2 to use the shop only for her department store business and not to part with possession. The appellant alleged that respondent No. 2 had allowed her son to run an independent business (M/s. Fifth Season) from the shop, thereby breaching the undertaking. The trial court dismissed the notice of motion. The High Court held that respondent No. 2 had indeed breached the undertaking, but instead of ordering her removal and handing over possession to the appellant, directed her to continue as Agent only upon payment of compensation/royalty and furnishing security. In default, the Court Receiver shall take possession.

1. Heading of the judgment

High court of judicature at bombay

Appeal from order no. ___ of 2024 with interim application no. 890 of 2024

M/s. rajendra trading company (appellant/original plaintiff) vs. M/s. s. p. builders & ors. (respondents/original defendants)

Coram: hon’ble mr. justice farhan p. dubash

Core Law: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XL Rule 1 – Appointment of Court Receiver – Breach of undertaking to court – Agency agreement with Court Receiver – Adverse inference under Section 119 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Farhan P. Dubash (Single Judge)
Date of Judgment: June 10, 2026 (Reserved on April 7, 2026)
Case No.: Appeal From Order No. ___ of 2024 with Interim Application No. 890 of 2024 (arising from Notice of Motion No. 4568 of 2017)

2. Legal framework

Major laws and provisions involved:

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XL Rule 1 (appointment of receiver), Order VII Rule 11 (rejection of plaint)

• Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 – Section 119 (court may presume existence of certain facts, including adverse inference for withholding evidence)

• Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 114 illustration (g) (corresponding provision)

Subject matter of the judgment:

Whether a person occupying property as Agent of the Court Receiver under an undertaking that she would use the premises only for her department store business and would not part with possession, is in breach of such undertaking when her son runs an independent business from the same premises, and whether such breach warrants appointment of Court Receiver and delivery of possession to the plaintiff.

Key legal principles applied:

• Undertaking to court is a solemn obligation: An undertaking given to the court is bind

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.