Wednesday, Apr 24, 2024 | Last Update : 09:39 PM IST
Bombay HC seeks clarity from div bench on disputed land
Romell’s counsel argued that as the magistrate had declined to appoint a court receiver, the HC should appoint one.
Mumbai: The Bombay high court has sought clarification from a division bench regarding the appointment of a court receiver pertaining to a disputed property at Borivali after Romell Housing LLP has claimed that they had been dispossessed from the property forcefully in April 2017.
The property in question is more than 100 acres and its possession has been the bone of dispute between Romell Housing and the heirs of the original owner Kamruddin Shaikh who passed away in a vegetative state in 2015.
The clarification was prompted after the owners of Romell Housing informed the court that the division bench had directed the Metropolitan Magistrate court to appoint a court receiver after going through the police inquiry report with regards to the property, but the magistrate refused to appoint a court receiver. Hence, they approached the HC for the same.
A bench of justice S.J. Kathawalla was hearing a notice of motion in the suit filed by Romell Housing LLP against Salim Kamruddin Shaikh and his brothers seeking a decree of possession to the suit property. Romell had averred that the property had been purchased by them from the estranged wife of Kamruddin in 2011. However, Kamruddin’s son’s argued that the wife had been divorced in 2008 by their father and hence the deal was not valid as it was based on forged documents.
When the matter came up for hearing on Wednesday, Romell Housing sought implementation of the division bench order as the magistrate court had failed to comply with its orders on the grounds that the Supreme Court in a special leave petition filed by Romell had directed the magistrate to hold an uninfluenced proceeding.
Romell’s counsel argued that as the magistrate had declined to appoint a court receiver, the HC should appoint one.
However, after hearing both sides at length, court sought clarification from the division bench as to whether its order to the magistrate was binding on the single bench of the court too and posted the matter for June 18.
