Appointment of receiver-factors to be considered
According to the catena of decisions referred to in that Madras decision, the element of danger is an important consideration and that the Court will not act on possible danger only but the danger must be great and imminent demanding immediate relief. The appointment of Receiver is recognised as one of the harshest remedies which the law provides for the enforcement of rights and is allowable only in extreme cases and in circumstances where the interests of the creditors is exposed to manifest peril. We are afraid that the case at hand does not satisfy these tests. It would be trite to say that Receiver is not to be appointed unless there is some substantial ground for such interference, such as a well founded apprehension that the property in suit will be dissipated or other irreparable mischief may be done unless the Court appoints a Receiver.
B.D.A. Ltd. vs Central Bank Of India, And Another on 21 July, 1994
Equivalent citations: AIR 1995 Bom 14, 1995 (1) MhLj 91
Bench: A Bhattacharjee, V Tipnis
https://www.lawweb.in/2013/07/appointment-of-receiver-factors-to-be.html
