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

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more