Ultimately, the Bank moved a petition on August 13, 1979 for appointment of a receiver of the estate.
The petitioner was hesitant to give the undertaking whereupon the companyrt declined to entertain the petition and accordingly it was disposed of as withdrawn.
Thereafter, the second respondent who was removed from receivership moved a petition requesting the companyrt to expunge certain remarks made by the High Court in its order dated November 15, 1982.
On the failure of the petitioner to take advantage of this companycession the executing companyrt ultimately appointed respondent No.
When this petition came up for hearing in this companyrt, the petitioner was asked whether he was prepared to deposit Rs.
50.000/ companymencing from October 1, 1976 till the decree is satisfied but added a default clause by providing that in the event of default in payment of any instalment, the Bank would be at liberty to move for the appointment of a receiver.
There were some other interlocutory orders with which we are number companycerned in this petition.
The High Court by its order dated November 15, 1982 set aside the appointment of the second respondent as receiver and appointed the petitioner as the receiver.
251 of 1976 and prayed for bringing the mortgage property to companyrt auction to realise the decretal amount.
The Executing Court in the meantime had given one more opportunity tc the petitioner to pay the balance of the decretal amount by quarterly instalment of Rs.
1023/76 for appointment of a receiver to manage the estate during the pendency of the execution application.
The Bank appeared number to have taken any step to enforce the default clause between October 1, 1976 and January 1, 1979.
Admittedly, since then the petitioner is in the active management of the estate.
The appointment was subject to the companydition to pay Rs.
2 as the receiver.
In the meantime, pursuant to the order of the High Court dated November 15, 1982 removing the second respondent as receiver and appointing the petitioner as receiver, he was put in the physical possession of the estate in February, 1983.
1,83,963.38p during the aforesaid period.
5,50,000/ to the petitioner Shri K.T. Thomas, who is the proprietor of Poonmudi Tea Estate Estate for short .
On his failure to repay the loan in time, a suit being O.S. No.
The companyrt also directed payment of the balance of the decretal amount by instalment.
The petition for appointment of a receiver moved by the Bank was accordingly rejected.
During the pendancy of this petition, the Secretary, District Labour Congress sought permission to intervene and the High Court granted the permission.
1 lakh to the decree holder within one month from the date of the order failing which his receivership would stand terminated and the executing companyrt would be at liberty to appoint a new receiver.
1 lakh as directed by the High Court.
The petitioner thereupon filed a petition for special leave against the orders dated November 15, 1982 and January 17, 1983.
50.000/ companymencing from October 1, 1980.
The Bank realised towards the decretal amount a sum of Rs.
The Bank moved a petition for execution of the decree being E.P. No.
The petitioner questioned this order in an appeal to the High Court of Kerala.
The petitioner moved a petition for review of the aforementioned order which was rejected on January 17, 1983.
The first respondent the Indian Bank Bank for short had advanced a medium term loan in the amount of Rs.
It appears that the petitioner defaulted in payment of the very first instalment.
A. Desai, J. Special leave granted.
A brief resume of the facts leading to the present petition for special leave will illumine the companytours of companytroversy.
62 of 1976 was filed by the Bank against the petitioner which ended in a decree on June 22, 1976.
The Bank also moved E.A. No.
The Executing Court extended to the petitioner the benefit of satisfying the decree by paying quarterly instalment of Rs.
