JUDGMENT- M.K. MUKHERJEE, C.J.:---The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 herein (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs) have filed the suit from which the instant appeal stems, for declaration that certain amounts as mentioned in the plaint, are due and payable by the appellant Company (the defendant No. 1 in the suit) and for declaration that the land and/or building and/or plant and machinery etc. belonging to it are secured to them for securing repayment of the said amounts. After filing the suit the plaintiffs took out a Notice of Motion being No. 1819 of 1989 for an injunction restraining the Company from disposing of and parting with possession of the properties secured to them and for appointment of Court Receiver. In that notice of motion initially an interim order of injunction was passed in favour of the respondents. On a further application for ad interim relief moved by them an order was passed by the learned trial Judge on October 23, 1989 appointing Court Receiver, in respect of the properties with a direction to appoint the Company as Court Receivers agent without security and compensation. At the final hearing of the said notice of motion on December 18, 1990 the learned trial Judge made it absolute and the Court Receiver was given discretion to appoint the Company as his agent on such terms and conditions as the Receiver might deem fit and proper including as to security and compensation. The Company was given two months, time to make application to the Receiver. It was further provided that in the event of the Company not opting to act as the agents of the Receiver within a period of two months as stipulated, the Receiver would be at liberty to appoint any other fit and proper person as his agent on such terms and conditions as he might deem fit and proper. The Receiver was also given liberty to effect sale of the moveables and retain the sale proceeds until further orders of the Court. In the appeal which the Company preferred against the said order, the liberty granted to the Receiver to sell the properties was only curtailed. In terms of the order of the trial Judge, as affirmed by the appellate Court, the Court Receiver took possession of the securities including land, building, plant, machinery and other movables lying in the Companys premises on January 15, 1991.

2. Thereafter several meetings were held before the Court Receiver and ultimately by his order dated February 16, 1991 the Court Receiver, after taking into consideration the three valuation reports placed before him and after hearing the parties, fixed the monthly royalty at Rs. 3 lacs and security at Rs. 50 lacs. Challenging the above order/direction of the Court Receiver the Company took out a notice of motion which was dismissed by the learned trial Judge by his order dated April 21, 1993. Aggrieved thereby the instant appeal has been filed by the Company.

3. It appears that while fixing the amount of monthly royalty and security the Court Receiver relied upon the valuation of the properties made by M/s. Nadkarni and Associates, valuers, who are on the panel of the Court Receiver, in preference to other valuers, appointed at the instance of the Company and the learned trial Judge accepted the report of the Court Receiver giving cogent reasons for the same. Having considered the impugned order of the trial Judge in the context of the materials on record and the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the said order passed by the learned trial Judge in exercise of his judicial discretion does not require any interference whatsoever.

4. It was however strenuously argued before us on behalf of the Company that having regard to the fact that the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction ("BIFR" for short) established under the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 ("Act" for short) was in seisin of an application filed by it for a declaration that it was a sick industrial company, within the meaning of tha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document