The High Court has rejected the said applications as number maintainable and has observed Upon companysideration of the companytextual we deem it expedient to record that in the event of there being a challenge to the decree, question of further order from the Appellate Court on the basis of the decree itself does number and cannot arise.
309 of 1993 and O.S. No.
Court can appreciate the blowing of hot or hotter but number blowing hot and companyd and appropriate and reprobate at one in the same time.
The Appellant shall have to exercise it option, to with, either to accept the decree and then proceed to take steps to execute the decree or prefer an appeal against the decree the appellant having chosen the second companyrse ought number to be allowed to move the Appellate Court with such an application which is solely based on the decree as passed by the Learned Trial Judge.
Three suits O.S. No.
Since the decree is under challenge question of obtaining any benefit under the decree does number arise.
In the said appeals the appellants Bank has challenged the decrees on the quantum of decree ii the rate of interest, and the direction for payment of decretal dues by instalments.
The Receiver was subsequently redesignated as Special Officer and was directed to make an inventory of hypothecated movables and inspect the accounts of respondent No.
Since the amount claimed by the appellant Bank was much more than the amount of decree passed in each suit, the appellant Bank filed appeals against the said decrees passed by the learned single judge before the Division Bench of the High Court.
The said applications filed by the appellant Bank have been disposed by the Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned judgment dated July 16, 1996.
WITH CIVIL APPEALS NOS 8596 8597 OF 1997 arising other L.P. C Nos.
These appeals are directed against the orders dated July 16,1996 passed by the Calcutta High Court on the applications submitted by the United Bank of India hereinafter referred to as the appellant Bank in pending appeals.
It was also directed that the Special Officer would companytinue until the entire payment is made and if the defendants make any default as stipulated therein, the Special Officer will take possession of t he assets charged.
The appellant Bank also submitted an application before the learned single Judge for appointment of a Charted Accountant and a Timber Expert to assess the value of securities.
It appears that the defendants respondents have failed to pay the dectetal dues as directed by the learned single Judge and the appellant Bank filed applications wherein the appellant Bank has prayed that the Special Officers be directed to take possession singly or jointly of the suit properties being the securities of the Bank with the direction to appoint Timber Expert, Chartered Accountant and Engineer as the Special Officer s may deem fit and proper for the purpose of making meaningful and companyplete inventory about quality, quantity and realisable value of the properties.
306 of 1993, O.S. No.
308 of 1993 were filed by the appellant Bank against the respondents in these appeals on the original Side of the Calcutta High Court.
In these suits the learned single Judge was pleased to appoint a Receiver, inter alia, over the hypothecated movables.
9726 of 1997 and 9792 of 1997 J U D G M E N T C. AGARWAL, J. Special Leave granted.
1 in these appeals.
On January 10, 1994 the learned single Judge passed decrees in all the three suits upon admission and awarded interest at the rate of 6 per annum of the decretal amount and it was directed that the amount shall be paid in quarterly instalments and that the defendants will go on paying the said instalment together with interest on reducing balance and that in the event of defendant falling to pay and two instalments, the plaintiff Bank will execute the decretal amount then remaining due and in that event the balance decretal amount will carry interest 16.5 per annum.
1 in these appeals against hypothecation of stocks, book debts movable assets and personal guarantees of the other respondents in the appeals.
The appellant Bank had extended credit facilities to the three companypanies who are respondent No.
