SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. SUBBA RAO, RAGHUBAR DAYAL AND J.R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.
Hiralal Patni, Appellant
Versus
Loonkaran Sethiya and others. Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 110 of 1961.
11th April, 196l
Advocates appeared
Mr. C. B. Aggarwala, Senior Advocate, (M/s. Rameshwar Nath, S. N. Andley, J. B. Dadachanji and P. L. Vohra, Advocates of M/s. Rajinder Narain & Co. with him), for Appellant; M/s. K. R. Chaudhuri, A. K. Kirty and Mrs. Ratna Rao Advocates, for Respondent No. 1; Mr. S. P. Sinha, Senior Advocate (Mr. M. I. Khawaja, Advocate, with him), for Respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4; Mr. H. N. Sanyal, Addl. Solicitor General of India (Mr. G. C., Mathur, Advocate, with him), for Respondent No. 5; Mr. Naunit Lal, Advocate, for Respondent No. 7.
-the law may be briefly stated thus (1) if a Receiver is appointed in a suit until judgment, the appointment is brought to an end by the judgment in action (2). If a Receiver is appointed in a suit, without his tenure being expressly defined, he will continue to be Receiver till he is discharged. (3) But, after the final disposal of the suit as between the parties to the litigation, the Receiver’s functions are terminated, he would still be answered to the Court as its officer till he is finally discharged. (4) The Court has ample power to continue the receiver even after the final decree if the exigencies of the case so require,
-a Receiver is an officer or representative of the Court and he functions under its directions. The Court may, for the purpose of enabling the receiver to take possession and administer the property, by order remove any person from the possession or custody of the property. Sub-rule (2) of Rule (1) limits that power in the case of a person who is not a party to the suit, if the plaintiff has not a present right to remove him. But when a person is a party to the suit, the Court can direct the receiver to remove him from the possession of the property even if the plaintiff has not a present right to remove him. In the case of Hiralal Patni v. Loonkaran Sethiya, AIR 1962 SC 21, the appellant was a party to the suit and the Court, through the Receiver took possession of the mill and thereafter the Receiver during the course of the administration of the property, under a compromise arrangement for running the mills leased out the flour mill to the appellant with the express condition that the appellant should redeliver the property to the Receiver on the expiry of the lease. When the term of the lease expired, the Court directed the Receiver to take possession of the mill. It was held that the Court was legally competent to confer a power on the receiver in Rule (1)(d) to recover the property from the appellant.
Judgment
SUBBA RAO, J. : This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment dated October 14, 1960, of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad confirming the order passed by the Civil Judge, Agra, directing the Official Receiver to take possession of the property of the appellant.
2. This case illustrates how the enforcement of an interlocutory order appointing a Receiver made in the interest of all the parties concerned could be obstructed and the object of the order itself be defeated by dilatory tactics adopted by one party or other.
3. At Agra, there were three spinning mills & one flour mill, all of which together were described as the Johns Mills; and, originally, the John family or their predecessors were the owners of all these mills. At the time the present proceedings were initiated, other persons had acquired interest therein. The following persons were the joint owners of the mills: (1) Hiralal Patni, ( the appellant, and Munni Lal Mehra . . . .19/40th sharer; (2) Gambhirmal Pandia Private Ltd ... ... 8/ 40th share; (3) Messrs. John & Co............11/ 40th share; and (4) I. E. John ...... . . .2/40th share. Seth Loonkaran Sethiya, respondent No. 1 advanced large amounts to Messrs. John & Co. on the security of its business assets and stocks. On April 18, 1949, the said Sethiya filed O. S. No. 76 of 1949 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Agra, against John & Co. for the recovery of the amount due to him by sale of the assets of the said company. To that suit the partners of Messrs. John & Co. for convenience described as defendants 1st set", and the partners of Messrs. Johns Jain & Co., who were for convenience described as "defendants 2nd set", were made parties. Pending the suit, the said Sethiya filed an application under O. XL, R. I, Code of Civil Procedure, for the appointment of a Receiver. By an order. dated May 21, 1949, the learned Civil Judge appointed two joint Receivers and directed them to run the three spinning mills. Hiralal Patni filed an appeal against that order to the High Court at Allahabad, and the said Court by its order dated . August 22, 1949, modified the order of the Civil Judge confining the order of appointment of Receivers only to the share of Messrs John & Co. in John Jain Mehra & Co. Loonkaran Sethiya made another application in the Court of the Civil Judge for the appointment of a Receiver for the property of Hiralal Pani and the learned Civil Judge by his order dated December, 1951, directed the Receivers to take possession of the appellants share in the mills also. Against this order an appeal was preferred to the High Court and the operation of the said order was stayed pending the disposal of the appeal. On April 5, 1954, the Civil judge passed a preliminary decree against the defendants therein directing them to deposit the decree amount in court within the prescribed time, and in default the plaintiff was given a right to apply for a final decree for sale of the business assets of the defendants. The decree also gave a right to apply for a personal decree in case the sale proceeds were not sufficient to discharge the decree. The preliminary decree directed that the Receivers should continue on the property until discharged. Hiralal Patni preferred an appeal to the High Court against the said preliminary decree and applied for interim stay of its operation. On August 23, 1955, the High Court discharged the Receivers appointed by the learned Civil Judge, and appointed another Receiver in their place. On March 25 1955, the learned Civil Judge prepared a scheme for running the mills, and the parties preferred appeals against that scheme to the High Court. The said appeals were compromised and under the terms of the compromise the parties agreed to take different mills on lease for a period of three years from the Receiver. On January 14. 1956, the Receiver executed a lease in respect of the flour mill in favour of Hiralal Patni for a period of three years. Under the leas
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.