Rashmi Wd/O Balraj Ramaswamy vs. Alpa Developers

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.4734 of 2007

IN

SUIT NO.3415 OF 2007

Smt.Rashmi Balraj Ramaswami & Anr ... Plaintiffs versus M/s.Alpa Developers & Associates & Anr ... Defendants

...

Mr. B.G. Vaidya i/b Mr.Vijay Mishra for the plaintiffs Mr.Tanvir Shaikh for defendant nos.2A to 2E

CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 22nd March 2010

P.C.

1. Heard.

2. By this motion, plaintiffs pray for appointment of a Court Receiver in respect of properties of the defendant no.1 firm and other incidental reliefs.

mpt

3. Mr.Kailashnath R. Tiwari, (original defendant no.2) and Mr.Balraj Ramaswamy, (husband of plaintiff no.2) formed a partnership for carrying on business of promoter and developer in the name and style of "M/s.Alpa Developers and Associates" (Defendant no.1). The defendant no.1 firm acquired the development rights in respect of the land bearing CTS No.172 and CTS No.172 (1 to 64) Kirol Village, Chira Nagar, Ghatkopar (West), Mumbai 400 086.

4. Balraj Ramaswamy died on or about 21st February 2005. It appears that after the death of Balraj Ramaswamy the partnership business was carried out by defendant no.2 who was the sole surviving partner of the erstwhile defendant no.1 firm. Some arrangement was agreed upon between the defendant no.2, the surviving partner and the plaintiff no.1 the widow of the deceased partner. According to the plaintiffs, that arrangement was not followed by the defendant no.2 and therefore the present Suit No. 3415 of 2007 was filed, inter alia for a declaration that the MOU of 21st July 2004 (sic 21st July 2005) be declared as null and void and for accounts. During the pendency of the suit, defendant no.2 also died and his heirs have been brought on record.

5. The situation today is that both the original partners have died. The plaintiff no.1 is a widow of one of the partners Balraj Ramaswamy and plaintiff no.2 is his minor daughter. Defendant no.2, the other partner has also died and has left behind him a widow and minor children. It appears that none of the parties are in a position to carry on the partnership business being ladies and/or minors. Counsel for both the parties submitted that their clients are not aware of all the assets of the partnership firm and the exact stage of development of the property undertaken by the firm. Taking this into consideration, it would be just and convenient to appoint a court receiver in respect of all the assets of the partnership firm with a direction to the receiver to initially take inventory and make an interim report regarding the properties of the firm and also the status of the development of the project undertaken by the firm. This is necessary to protect the assets of the partnership from dissipitating and also to protect the interest of third party purchasers who might have paid some money to the partnership firm and booked the flats. In the circumstances, the Court Receiver is appointed as the receiver in respect of all the assets of the partnership firm. The Court Receiver is directed to forthwith take inventory of all assets of the partnership firm and also to carry out inspection either by himself or through his assistants of the project and make a report regarding the status of the building project and the bookings, if any made by the firm/defendants.

6. The preliminary report shall be submitted by the Court Receiver within six weeks.

(D.G. KARNIK,J.)