On 6.12.1998, the appellants wrote to the Receiver requesting for a Statement of Account and also information as to whether the Receiver had incurred any expenses in respect of statutory liabilities etc.
After approval of the title by the plaintiff if the defendants fail to obtain a certificate under section 230A of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 or fail to obtain also permission of the companypetent authority if required under the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling Regulations Act, 1976 as required then and in that event, Mr. Dip Narayan Mitra is appointed Receiver over and in respect of the said property without authority and without remuneration and is directed to execute a Deed or Conveyance and or companyveyance in favour of the plaintiff or his numberinee as provided for under these terms of settlement.
Out of the balance sum of Rs.3,00,000/ you are requested to prepare three cheques of Rs.1,00,000/ each in the names of Amal Kumar Ghosh, Debabrata Ghosh and Subrata Ghosh respectively.
The Receiver should have either companyplied with the terms of settlement or should have companyplied with the instructions companytained in the letters dated 7.10.1986, 11.12.1986 and 22.12.1986.
to the Calcutta Municipal Corporation as that was number part of the instructions in the letters dated 7.10.1986, 11.12.1986 and 22.12.1986.
The Receiver sent a reply dated 28.3.2005 to the appellants stating that whatever amount that had been lying with him had been made over by him to Mr. R.L. Gaggar, Solicitor and Advocate representing the purchasers of the premises in companypliance with Mr. R. L. Gaggars letter dated 1.8.2002 and, therefore, as far as he was companycerned, the chapter was closed and he stood discharged.
There was also numberorder of the companyrt to pay the amount to first respondent.
Simultaneously with the execution of the Deed or Conveyance in accordance with these terms of settlement as hereinafter mentioned the plaintiff shall make over to the defendants or to the Receiver as the case may be the balance companysideration money less any amount which may be paid or deducted by the plaintiff on account of municipal taxes and other outgoings in respect of the said property in accordance with these Terms of Settlement.
Ltd. towards statutory liabilities and other outgoings in regard to the property.
emphasis supplied But the Receiver did number pay the sum of Rs.3,00,000/ to Park Services Pvt.
By letters dated 7.10.1986, 11.12.1986 and 22.12.1986, the appellants informed the Receiver that, in pursuance of the companysent decree, they had transferred the suit premises to eleven numberinees of the first respondent under different deeds of sale and gave the following instructions to the Receiver in regard to Rs.6,00,000/ deposited by the purchasers It has been agreed between us and Mr. Basant Kumar Almal that out of the said amount of Rs.6,00,000/ lying presently with you a sum of Rs.3,00,000/ will be paid to Park Services Pvt.
Ltd. On the other hand, out of the said sum, he paid a sum of Rs.1,08,341.64p.
The Receiver replied on 21.1.1999 that he will release the amount to the appellants on their obtaining a numberobjection certificate from Parks Services Pvt.
on their behalf.
Ltd. of 119, Park Street, Calcutta towards payment of the statutory liability and other outgoings in respect of the said premises and such payment shall be a full and effectual discharge of the payment to be made by you.
The first respondent filed an appeal against the dismissal of the suit before the Division Bench of the High Court.
That was number companyplied with.
Thereafter, the appellants wrote to the Receiver on 8.1.1999 requesting for payment of the amount.
Ltd. in the appellants letters dated 7.10.1986, 11.12.1986 and 22.12.1986 was in discharge of the obligation of the appellants to the first respondent in terms of the companysent decree on account of municipal taxes and other outgoings and therefore the application was liable to be dismissed.
Ltd. The appellants did number furnish numberobjection certificate from Park Services Pvt.
Ltd Nor did Park Services Pvt.
emphasis supplied In pursuance of clause 6 of the Terms of Settlement, the second respondent herein was appointed as Receiver.
Clauses 3, 6 and 7 of the Terms of Settlement which are relevant, are extracted below Immediately after the filing of these terms of settlement, the plaintiff shall pay to the defendants a sum of Rs.3,00,000/ Rupees Three Lacs only in part payment of the companysideration and the balance sum of Rs.6,00,000/ Rupees Six Lacs only shall be paid of the time of companypletion of the companyveyance and if several deeds of companyveyance are executed for the parts of portions of the said premises then and in that event the said amount of companysideration shall be apportioned and such amount as apportioned shall be paid of the time of execution of each deed of companyveyance after taking into account the advance payment of Rs.3,00,000/ Rupees Three Lacs only paid by the plaintiff.
In pursuance of the settlement, after payment of Rs.3,00,000/ to the appellants, the balance sale companysideration of Rs.6,00,000/ was deposited with the Receiver.
Under the terms of settlement, the appellants agreed to sell 90 Kottahs of land to the first respondent or his numberinees at a price of Rs.10,000/ per Kottah.
During the pendency of the appeal, the parties first respondent and appellants arrived at a settlement and in terms of the said settlement, the suit was decreed on 5.8.1986.
The first respondent herein filed a suit for specific performance against the appellants herein.
We have heard learned companynsel for the appellants, the first respondent and the Receiver appointed by the High Court, who was impleaded on the direction of this Court as the second respondent.
by cheque dated 13.1.1987 to the Calcutta Municipal Corporation towards the property tax due in respect of the premises and deposited the balance in a fixed deposit.
It is true that by letters dated 7.10.1986, 11.12.1986 and 22.12.1986, the appellants had instructed the Receiver to pay Rs.3,00,000/ to Park Services Pvt.
emphasis supplied In pursuance of the said three letters, the Receiver paid Rs.300,000/ to the appellants at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/ each.
It is pursuance of this letter, that the Receiver paid a sum of Rs.9,23,998/36 which was the balance amount with accrued interest till that date to Mr. L. Gaggar on 23.8.2002.
In that event, the balance companysideration is made over to the Receiver the same shall be made over by the Receiver to the defendants and upon such payment the Receiver shall stand discharged and filing of the account by the Receiver shall be dispensed with.
That suit was dismissed by a learned single Judge of the High Court in the year 1981.
V. Raveendran J., Leave granted.
The High Court has number examined these aspects.
On the other hand, he has chosen to release the amount to the plaintiff in the suit first respondent herein , acting on the request of his companynsel Mr. R. L. Gaggar.
But the Receiver did number companyply with the said instructions as he admitted that the sum of Rs.3,00,000/ was number paid by him to the Park Services Pvt.
Ltd., but again wrote a letter dated 24.3.2005 calling upon the Receiver to pay the amount that was held by him as Receiver.
The said order is challenged in this appeal.
He did neither.
This brought forthwith a reply dated 28.12.1998 from the Receiver informing the appellants that as on that date, as Receiver, he was holding a sum of Rs.5,29,717/ in fixed deposit towards the balance.
There is also numberexplanation from the Receiver as to why he directly paid Rs.1,08,341.64p.
Ltd make a demand for payment of the said amount by the Receiver.
The Receiver issued a certificate dated 2.1.1987 to the appellants wherein he companyfirmed receipt of the instructions of the appellant as follows As advised and agreed, I have retained a sum of Rs.3,00,000/ Rupees three lakhs only for payment to Park Services Private Limited of No.119, Park Street, Calcutta on account of statutory liabilities and other outgoings in respect of Premises No.8/2 Palm Avenue, Calcutta in terms of three letters dated 7th October, 1986 written by Sri Amal Kumar Ghosh, 11th December, 1986 written by Sri Debabrata Ghosh and 22nd December, 1986 written by Sri Subrata Ghosh to me.
Neither the companysent decree number the appellants authorization required the amount to be paid to the purchasers or the first respondent.
