ANDHRA BANK Vs. SHAM DINKAR KHARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the suit filed by the Plaintiffs Bank against the defendants for recovery of sum of Rs. 3,14,131. 45 and to enforce the securities created, by the defendants, the present Notice of Motion has been taken out for appointment of Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay, as Receiver and for grant of interim order of injunction as prayed for therein.

(2.) IN the month of December 1986, the defendants had approached the plaintiffs for financial assistance by way of secured loan for development of the property situate at village Gajbandh. Sub-division Taluka Kalyan in District Thane which property is more particularly described in Ex. A to the plaint and offered to create equitable mortgage of the said property. The 3rd defendant also offered to create security of the flat described in Ex. B to the plaint. In consideration of financial assistance granted by the plaintiffs to the defendants 1 and 2, the security of the said Gajbandh property and the said flat were created in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendants 1 and 3 had created equitable mortgage of the said Gajbandh property and the said flat in favour of the plaintiffs. The original share certificate No. 19 issued by Shree Omkar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. , evidencing five shares bearing distinctive Nos. 21 to 25 was deposited with the plaintiffs as and by way of creation of equitable mortgage in respect of the said flat No. 3. So far as the said Gajbandh property is concerned, according to the 1st defendant, the plaintiffs had permitted the 1st defendant to develop the same and also to the sell the flats on ownership basis and accordingly after construction of the building, the 1st defendant has already sold the flats constructed therein to the various purchasers thereof. So far as the said flat is concerned, it is the case of the 1st defendant that the same has been mortgaged to Maharashtra Housing Finance Corporation.

(3.) SO far as the said Flat No. 3 is concerned, it appears that so far the same has not been disposed off either by the 1st defendant or any of the other defendants. In view of the indifferent attitude adopted by the defendants, the apprehensions of the plaintiffs are justified and it is just and convenient that the Receiver, High Court, Bombay, be appointed as Receiver of the said Flat No. 3.