Abnormal or extraordinary circumstances must be demonstrated to justify a departure from the normal rule under Rule 591 for the reduction of Court Receiver's fees.

Headnote:
Rule 591 - Reduction in Court Receiver's fees - Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980 - Rule 591
Fact of the Case:

The defendant sought a reduction in the fees charged by the Court Receiver under Rule 591 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980. The Court had earlier fixed an ad hoc amount, which was challenged and appealed. The defendant contended that the amount deducted by the Court Receiver was disproportionate and should be reduced.
Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the Court Receiver's charges and fees were fixed in accordance with the prescribed scale under Rule 591. The Court held that the defendant failed to demonstrate abnormal or extraordinary circumstances warranting a departure from the normal rule. The Court dismissed the Chamber Summons, ruling in favor of the Court Receiver.
Issues: The main issue was whether the defendant had grounds for the reduction of the Court Receiver's fees under Rule 591.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court determined that abnormal or extraordinary circumstances must be present to justify a departure from the normal rule under Rule 591. It held that the defendant failed to establish such circumstances and therefore dismissed the Chamber Summons.
Final Decision: The Chamber Summons was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

JUDGMENT - KAMDAR S.U., J.: - The present chamber summons is taken out under Rule 591 of Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980 inter alia seeking a reduction in the fees charged by the Court Receiver in accordance with the provisions thereof.

2. Some of the material facts of the present case briefly enumerated are as under :-

3. A suit was filed on 20-11-1997 for recovery of aggregate amount of Rs. 1,01,29,33,563/- and for various other reliefs. An interim application being Notice of Motion No. 3 of 1997 was moved. On 7-1-1998 this Court appointed Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay as Receiver in respect of the properties of the 1st respondent described in Exhibits A-1 to A-5 of the plaint. The Receiver was also appointed in respect of the goods, movables and bankers goods described in Exhibits B-1 to B-7 with all powers under Order XL, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1908. Under the said order it was ordered that the defendant No. 1 should be appointed as agent of the Court Receiver in respect of the said properties. However, defendant No. 1 opted to act as agent only in respect the two running units at Gotan and Nimbahera in the State of Rajasthan. In respect of other properties the defendant No. 1 declined to act as the agent of the Court Receiver.

4. Sometime in or about January 1998, defendant No. 1 filed an application before the BIFR under the provisions of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 being the case Reference No. 22 of 1998. The said reference which was made to the BIFR was rejected and according to the defendant No. 1 an appeal is pending before the Appellate Authority of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction Board. By an order dated 23-1-2003, the Appellate Authority has framed the scheme. In the meantime the main suit on 20-12-2002 the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bombay appointed one Seven Star Security Services India Private Limited as the private Receiver in substitution of the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay. Pursuant to the said order new Receiver being appointed, the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay was directed to transfer the amount lying with the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay to the said Seven Star Security Services India Pvt. Ltd. The Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay, has accordingly, transferred the sum of Rs. 29.5 crores in or about January 2003. According to the defendant No. 1 the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay had with him a royalty amount of Rs. 29,73,99,998/- upto 31-12-2003 whereas the amount transferred was Rs. 29.5 crores. On enquiry being made, the defendant No. 1 was informed that Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay has charged a sum of Rs. 1,69,03,000/- as and by way of his fees under Rule 591 of the High Court Rules by computing the amount at the rate of 6% on the royalty and licence fee and 5% on the interest earned on investment which the Court Receiver effected. The said sum of Rs. 1,69,03,000/- has been debited for the years 1999 to 2002 as commission.

5. It is this amount of deduction by the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay which has been challenged by the defendant No. 1 by taking out the present application and the defendant No. 1 seeks an order under Rule 591 that the amount so fixed by the Court Receiver must be reduced.

6. The present chamber summons was earlier disposed of by the order and judgment of the learned Single Judge fixing the amount of Rs. 10 lacs as an ad hoc amount to be received by the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay under Rule 591. The State Government preferred an appeal against the said order being Appeal No. 477 of 2004. By an order dated 1-9-2004 of the Division Bench of this Court the said order has been set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Single Judge with inter alia an observation that for exercise of power under Rule 591 of the High Court Rules, the Judge in chamber is required to give reasons and the discretion conferred thereunder has to be judiciously exercised on the basis

Click Here to Read the rest of this document