Skip to main content

Principal of Custodia Legis or In the custody of the law explained

In Haji Hanif Hakam Vs. Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal at Kolkata & Ors., the plaintiff being assignee of the residue of the unexpired period of the leasehold interest in the suit property submitted that Joint Receivers were appointed by the Hon’ble High Court for taking actual physical possession of the suit property and the suit premise is, therefore, custodia legis. The third respondent is aware of such possession by the Joint Receivers yet without obtaining the leave of the Court appointing the Joint Receivers, had filed a proceeding RDDB Act. Subsequently the suit property was put up for sale and sold by the Recovery Officer and therefore the sale is illegal, null and void.

The third respondent submitted that the Joint Receivers are not in actual physical possession of the immovable property. Although, the initial order was for actual physical possession, the same was later modified to mean that the Receivers will take constructive possession. Therefore, it cannot be said that, the Receivers are in actual physical possession of the suit property. He has relied upon 1996 Volume 11 Supreme Court Cases page 376 (Anthony C. Leo v. Nandlal Bal Krishnan & Ors.) and 2002 Volume 2 Calcutta High Court Notes page 522 (Bengal Peerless Housing Development Co. Ltd. v. Gopeswar Prasad Agarwal & Ors.) for the proposition that, when the Receiver is not in an actual physical possession, then, the dealings with regard to an immovable property cannot be struck down on the ground of the breach of the principles of custodia legis.

The Calcutta High Court held that the Division Bench in Bengal Peerless Housing Development Co. Ltd. (supra) has considered Kanhaiyalal (supra) as well as Anthony C. Leo (supra).

Court appointing a Receiver over a property to take actual physical possession thereof becomes custodia legis of such property. However, appointment of a Receiver does not mean that the property vests in the Receiver or the Court, even pendente lite. A person claiming any paramount right in respect of the property has to obtain the leave of the Court in custodia legis to establish such right. Such leave is required when the Court has appointed a Receiver to take physical possession of the property. A proceeding initiated without the leave of Court appointing the Receiver, when the Receiver is not in physical possession of the property, does not stand vitiated by absence of leave.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Vanishing promoters and languishing shareholders

Over Rs 60,000 crore of shareholders’ wealth is stuck in 1,450 companies suspended by the stock exchanges. More importantly, near 100 per cent pledging of promoter holding appears to be common in many of these companies. This, almost rules out any chance of the companies bouncing back. The suspension is for non-compliance of the listing norms. Vanishing Companies - Definition As per the definition stipulated by SEBI, any listed company, which raised moneythrough initial public offer and, thereafter, stopped operations, did not file returnseither with the RoC or SEBI and did not exist on the registered premises wastermed as vanishing.There are provisions under Companies Act under which companies are termedvanishing companies on satisfying certain conditions. it is provided a companywould be deemed to be a vanishing company, if it satisfies all the conditions given below : a) Failed to file returns with Registrar of Companies (ROC) for a period of two years; b) Failed to fil
3 comments
Read more