This attachment order was levied by the Master of the Court and the interim attachment was companyfirmed.
No action was sought to be taken against the joint receivers who had interposed themselves in the meantime.
95/80 and Appeal No.
4,29,702.94 p. to the petitioner decree holder in terms of the payment order dated 4th May, 1978 out of the amount of the Fixed Deposit of the judgment debtor with Grindlays Bank Ltd., in Fixed Deposit Receipt No.
However, the Court at the instance of joint receivers stayed the portion of the order dated March 7, 1980, for a period of a fortnight.
2,85,000 with interest thereon at 6 per annum from January 6, 1970, the date of the decree, till realisation.
It appears that these directions were number obeyed.
Probably soon thereafter some interim orders were obtained as would transpire from the order of Mrs. Padma Khastgir, J. dated March 7, 1980.
It appears that the solemn undertaking given by the Bank was number acted upon.
The Court also declined to grant prayer for discharge of the receiver K. Dutta, the 3rd respondent, because numberice of the application was number served upon him.
1002/2529 in the Grindlays Bank.
The date of appointment is number made clear but the order dated March 7, 1980 Annexure J by Mrs. Padma Khastgir, J. leaves numberroom for doubt that till that date 3rd respondent S.K. Dutta was number discharged as receiver.
The order dated June 7, 1979, is number a fresh order on merits.
4,20,702.94 p. had become due and payable under the decree.
94, 122 95 of 1980 respectively.
Effectively this order of the Court directed the receiver to pay the amount therein mentioned to the decree holder and the Bank, the keeper of the fixed deposit account of the receiver was also put under an obligation number to raise any objection on receiver withdrawing the money and paying the same to the decree holder.
Prayer a That the receiver Sudhir Kumar Dutta be forthwith directed to instruct and intimate to the Grindlays Bank Ltd., Netaji Subhash Road Branch, Calcutta, to pay a sum of Rs.
On June 7, 1979, when the petition for taking action against the alleged companytemners came up before the Court, respondents 5 and 6 appear to have been appointed as joint receivers.
If appears that thereafter three appeals came to be filed before the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court.
Hence these three appeals by special leave.
It appears that the Ist respondent companypany received Rs.
In this order it was distinctly made clear that except what is stated the specifically in the order all interim orders were vacated.
4,20,702.94 to the appellant decree holder out of the amount in the fixed deposit account of the judgment debtor with the Bank in fixed deposit receipt No.
The Administrator on behalf of the 1st respondent companypany entered into a companypromise with the appellant in respect of the claim in suit of the appellant and after obtaining leave of the Court to settle the matter, invited a companysent decree by which the companypany was held liable and directed to pay Rs.
1002 2539 standing in the name of S.K. Dutta, the fixed deposit receipt whereof is Lying deposited with the present joint receivers R.C. Deb and A.K.Dutta Order of injunction restraining Jethabhai Khatau and Co. from obtaining any payment out of the moneys lying in the Grindlays Bank and held by the joint receivers or receiver.
Pursuant to this order an interim attachment was levied under order 21 Rule 52 C.P.C. On the amount companyered by the aforementioned fixed deposit receipt, and accordingly the Master of the Court, Shri S.K. Ghosh informed the 3rd respondent receiver by the writ of the Court dated April 12, 1978, that the receiver shall hold the money under the fixed deposit account subject to such order as may be made respecting the same in the suit in which he had been appointed a receiver and subject to further orders of the Court Annexure E .
It reads as under There will be an order in terms of prayers a b of the petition.
4,19,697.06 will be held by the receiver it would imply that would be the balance after payment of the amount directed to be paid to the appellant.
By the date of the order Rs.
Appeals by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 9.9.1980 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal Nos.
There is numberproceeding at precent questioning the companyrectness, validity or legality of the decree or its binding character on the 1st respondent companypany.
The Bank appeared through its companynsel Mr. Majumdar and the joint receivers appeared forth themselves as well as for their respective clients, namely, 1st respondent companypany and the 2nd respondent State of West Bengal.
4,20,702.94 p. Out of the fixed deposit account held by him as receiver of the Ist respondent companypany to the appellant and a companysequential order was made directing the Bank to pay the amount set out in the order to the appellant.
1002 2539 with the fourth respondent Bank to the appellant in satisfaction of the decree.
3rd respondent S.K. Dutta was once a receiver.
Presumably neither the 3rd respondent receiver number the Bank effectively implemented the order dated May 4, 1978, whereupon the appellant moved the Court during the vacation on May 24, 1979, for an appropriate direction and a learned single Judge of the Calcutta High Court working as vacation judge gave the directions prayed for.
1194/66 against the companypany on the original side of the Calcutta High Court to recover a certain amount due under two separate heads.
122/80 was preferred by the 2nd respondent State of West Bengal.
Consequently, the appellant moved the Court for holding the 3rd respondent receiver S.K. Dutta and the 4th respondent Bank in companytempt and for passing appropriate order for punishing them for companytempt unless they purged themselves of the companytempt.
On May 4, 1978 upon a petition by the appellant the Court directed the receiver 3rd respondent to pay the sum of Rs.
The appellant, by an order dated April 5, 1978, of the Calcutta High Court, obtained leave to execute the decree by attachment of funds lying in the hands of the 3rd respondent receiver S.K. Dutta Annexure D .
4,20,702.94 p. to the petitioner decree holder in terms of the payment order dated 4th May, 1978, out of the said fixed deposit receipt No.
The Master companyfirmed the interim attachment by his order dated April 24, 1978 Annexure F .
In fact upon its true companystruction, the Bank was also under an obligation to take effective steps to pay the amount mentioned in the order to the decree holder.
It is because the Bank agreed unreservedly and unconditionally to pay up the amount that the motion for taking action in companytempt was discharged by the Court.
To clarify the position it may be mentioned that when the Court directed that balance of Rs.
1002 2539 standing in the name of the receiver which was attached in terms of order dated April 12, 1978, as companyfirmed by the order dated April 24, 1978.
5,000, the first instalment becoming due and payable on March 15, 1970, and each subsequent instalment to be paid by 15th day of the next succeeding month.
The respondents in all the three appeals are 1 Luxmi Narayan Cotton Mills Ltd., an incorporated Company companypany for short , 2 State of West Bengal, 3 S.K. Dutta, who was for some time a receiver appointed by the High Court 4 Grindlays Bank, Bank for short , having a fixed deposit account in the name of Receiver.
This observation would, however, establish that till March 7, 1980, the 3rd respondent was number discharged as a receiver though from the recitals in the order dated June 7, 1979, it appears that by that date A.K. Dutta and R.C. Deb were functioning as joint receivers.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
Manoj Kumar Mukherjee, J. by his order dated May 24, 1979, directed 3rd respondent S.K.Dutta, receiver of the Ist respondent companypany to pay Rs.
8,40,000 out of the companypensation amount in fixed deposit account evidenced by receipt No.1002 2539 with the Bank at its Netaji Subhash Road Branch, Calcutta.
S.K. Dutta on behalf of Luxmi Narayan Cotton Mills Ltd., 5 A.K. Dutta, and 6 C. Deb, who claim to have been appointed as joint receivers after removal of Sh.
4,20,702.94 p. to the petitioner decree holder Prayer b That Grindlays Bank Ltd., Netaji Subhash Road Branch, Calcutta, be directed to pay the said sum of Rs.
By the time the suit came up for hearing the board of Directors of the 1st respondent companypany was superseded and one Gurudas Sharma was appointed as an Administrator.
Specifically this order has the effect of companyfirming the earlier order dated May 24, 1970, to pay the decretal amount to the appellant.
Appellant filed suit No.
94/80 were preferred by the Ist respondent companypany.
This order dated May 24, 1979, may appear to have become final as it appears number to have been questioned, challenged or appealed by any one.
Shankar Ghosh, B.P. Maheshwari and Miss Asha Jain for Respondent No.
Failure to companyply with the companyrts mandatory direction led the appellant to file a petition for companytempt.
4,20,702.94 out of the fixed deposit account in the name of 3rd respondent S.K. Dutta, receiver of the Ist respondent companypany.
As this order has some legal companysequences in this matter, it would be advantageous to extract it.
Sabyasachi Mukerjee, J. by his order dated May 4, 1978, directed 3rd respondent S.K. Dutta to pay the amount of Rs.
When this petition for taking action in companytempt came up before Manoj Kumar Mukherjee, J. there appeared on the scene one Mr. Majumdar, learned companynsel for the 4th respondent Bank as well as the two joint receivers functioning in dual capacity as joint of receivers as well as learned companynsel for the respective clients, namely, Ist respondent companypany and the 2nd respondent State of West Bengal.
Appeal No.
The 3rd respondent S.K. Dutta appears to have been appointed a receiver in respect of this companypensation amount and he appears to have deposited Rs.
The alleged companytemners impleaded were Ist respondent companypany and the 4th respondent Bank.
S.K. Dutta.
4,20,702.94 P. Out of the amount Lying in fixed deposit receipt No.
The High Court on a petition of the appellant levied attachment under order 21 Rule 52 C.P.C. On the amount Lying in fixed deposit account with 4th respondent Bank in the name of 3rd respondent S.K.Dutta as receiver of the first respondent companypany by order dated April 5, 1978.
Dalip Sinha, G.S. Chatterjee and P.K. Chatterjee for Respondent No.
This interim order was companyfirmed by the Division Bench by its order dated September, 9, 1980.
N. Kacker and H.R. Puri for the Appellant.
1002 2539.
15,00,000 from the Custodian of Enemy Property in respect of its companyton Mills situated in Narayanganj, Bangladesh.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DESAI, J. M s Jethabhai Khatu Co., a partnership firm, is the appellant in all the three appeals.
These three appeals were preferred against the order dated March 7, 1980, made by Mrs. Padma Khastgir, J. In the two appeals preferred by the Ist respondent companypany a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court by its order dated March 27, 1980, granted ad interim stay as under The Joint Receivers, R.C. Deb and A.K. Dutta are directed number to part with any money lying deposited under the fixed deposit receipt No.
Respondents say that he has been removed and respondents 5 and 6 who are respectively the Advocates of the Ist respondent companypany and the 2nd respondent State of West Bengal claim to be appointed as joint receivers.
4,19,697.06p till further order of the Court.
1256 1258 of 1981.
The default clause in the companysent decree provided that if the companypany companymitted default in payment of any two instalments within the time stipulated in the decree, the whole of the decretal amount and the interest on the balance of the decretal amount will become due and payable at once.
There will be an order directing the Grindlays Bank Ltd., of 29, Netaji Subhash Road number to disburse any amount in respect of fixed deposit No.
This order may appear to have become final as number having been questioned by any one.
Appeal No.
When the matter came up on March 7, 1980, the companyrt observed that there will by numberorder on the applications before it save and except that the receiver will hold the balance sum of Rs.
Frankly, this Court ordinarily does number interfere with interim orders unless and until manifest injustice companyvulsively shakes it.
The Ist respondent companypany was given an option to pay the decretal amount by monthly instalments of Rs.
Therefore, the companyrt declined to accede to their request to stay a portion of the order.
Admittedly these orders were number challenged.
1002 2539 which has been Lying attached in terms of the order dated 12th April, 1978 and is companyfirmed by the order dated 24th April, 1978 and the said Grindlays Bank Ltd., Netaji Subhash Road, Branch, Calcutta, be directed to pay the said sum of Rs.
