Hotel Swarn row: Jharkhand HC upholds receiver, allows business to continue
THE JHARKHAND STORY NETWORK Ranchi, September 2: The Jharkhand High Court has upheld the appointment of a receiver in the dispute over…
THE JHARKHAND STORY NETWORK
Ranchi, September 2: The Jharkhand High Court has upheld the appointment of a receiver in the dispute over Hotel Swarn and the property on which it stands, while making it clear that the hotel business can continue to be run by Harjit Singh.
Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, hearing M.A. No. 452 of 2026, dismissed an appeal filed by Harjit Singh challenging the Ranchi civil court’s order appointing a receiver to supervise the property and hotel business.
The court noted that the receiver’s role was primarily to inspect the property, monitor the management and preserve business records. It specifically observed that the trial court had not restrained the appellant from running the hotel business.
The case stems from a partition suit filed by Birendra Pal Singh concerning around six kathas of land at Mouza Siram under Chutia police station in Ranchi, along with the multi-storeyed commercial building and Hotel Swarn operating from the premises.
The trial court had on May 22, 2026, allowed Birendra Pal Singh’s application under Order XL Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for appointment of a receiver.
Aggrieved by the order, Harjit Singh approached the High Court through the present miscellaneous appeal.
Harjit Singh claims sole business rights
Appearing for Harjit Singh, senior advocate Amar Kumar Sinha argued that although both brothers’ names appeared in the sale deeds, the entire consideration for the property had been paid by his client.
He submitted that Harjit Singh had subsequently developed the property at his own cost into a B+G+4 commercial building and was running Hotel Swarn as its sole proprietor.
The appellant also relied on GST registration, municipal trade licence and commercial tax registration documents issued in connection with the hotel business.
His counsel argued that the appointment of a receiver was legally unwarranted and would interfere with his client’s possession and management of the property.
Brother cites joint loan and business
Birendra Pal Singh’s counsel, however, told the court that the brothers had jointly developed the property and operated the hotel business.
The respondent relied on loan documents showing that the loan for development of the property had been sanctioned in the names of both brothers. Birendra Pal Singh was also shown as a co-borrower along with his son in the relevant loan documents.
The respondent contended that the joint hotel business was the only source of livelihood for him and his family and that he had allegedly received only a meagre amount in recent years.
HC finds prima facie joint loan liability
The High Court noted that the two parties were brothers and that the sale deeds indicated that the property had been purchased by both.
The court said Harjit Singh’s claim that he had paid the entire consideration was a matter to be decided during the trial.
It further found that the documents on record prima facie showed that the loan for development of the property had been taken by both brothers.
Receiver to inspect property, records
The trial court had directed the defendant to continue the day-to-day operation of the hotel, while maintaining proper accounts of income and expenditure.
It also directed preservation of GST records, bank statements, account books and other business-related documents.
The receiver/Advocate Commissioner was directed to inspect the property and hotel business and submit a report on its physical condition, actual possession and management, mode of operation, financial and tax records, licences, bank transactions and income-generating activities.
The parties were also restrained from creating any third-party interest in the property without the court’s permission and from making structural alterations or changing its nature during the pendency of the suit.
The High Court observed that the trial court had not taken away Harjit Singh’s right to operate the hotel. Instead, the directions were aimed at ensuring proper management, preservation of records and protection of the disputed property while the partition suit remains pending.
Finding no illegality in the trial court’s order, Justice Dwivedi dismissed the appeal. Any pending petition was also disposed of.
