Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
K. C. DAS GUPTA, DEBABRATA MOOKHERJEE
BALAI LAL SEN - Appellant
Versus
PRAMATHA NATH SEN - Respondent
First Appeal 146 Of 1950
Decided On : JUNE 06, 1958
Receivers - Permission to Sue - Discharged Receivers - Failure to Submit Accounts
Fact of the Case:
The application sought permission to sue receivers appointed by the court, with the court considering the necessity of leave to sue discharged and present receivers.
Finding of the Court:
The court rejected the application to sue discharged receivers, stating that no leave was necessary to sue them. As for the present receiver, the court found it improper to grant leave to sue based on the failure to submit accounts within a month of appointment.
Issues: Permission to sue discharged and present receivers, necessity of leave to sue, failure to submit accounts
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that no leave was necessary to sue discharged receivers, as there was no interference with the court's management of the property through the receiver. It also found it improper to grant leave to sue the present receiver based on the failure to submit accounts within a month of appointment.
Final Decision: The application was rejected with costs to the appearing opposite parties, and no relief was sought against another party.
( 2 ) AS regards Bibhuti Bhusan Sen, the position is somewhat different as he is the present receiver. It has to be remembered that he was appointed receiver in August, 1957 and the only allegation made against him in the body of the petition is that when the petitioner approached him in September, 1957 for accounts and for a settlement of dues, he failed to submit the statement of accounts. I do not think it will be proper to give leave to sue him for failure to submit accounts within a month of his appointment. It is to be noticed that leave is not being asked for on the basis that the petitioner is entitled to obtain damages from the firm Sen Brothers and Company and that is in the hands of the receiver.
( 3 ) THE application is accordingly rejected with costs to the appearing opposite parties Sisir Kumar Basu and Bibhuti Bhusan Sen. The hearing fee is assessed at two gold mohurs each.
( 4 ) MANINDRA Kumar Sen also appeared before us but no relief was sought against him. In these circumstances, we do not think it necessary to allow any costs to him.
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
