( 1 ) THIS application is for permission to sue Balai Lal Sen, Kanai Lal Sen, Sisir Kumar Basu and Bibhuti Bhusan Sen on the basis that they were receivers appointed by this Court of the firm Sen Brothers and Company. It has to be noticed that Balai Lal Sen, Kanai Lal Sen and Sirir Kumar Basu are no longer receivers and have been discharged. It was held in Dinshaw v. Amrit Lal and Co. , ILR 10 Pat 379 : (AIR 1931 Fat 298) (A) that no leave was necessary to sue a discharged receiver. This was stated to be the correct law in Sir John Wood-toffe's "law relating to Receivers. " The same view appears to have been taken in England in a case reported in Botibol v. Botibol, (1947) 1947-1 All E. R. 26 (B ). The principle appears to be that when a receiver has already been discharged, there is no question of any interference with the Court's management of the property through the receiver, and no leave is necessary to bring a suit against a receiver after discharge. In our judgment, that is the correct position in law. Accordingly, we reject the application in so far as it is for leave to sue Balai Lal Sen, Kanai Lal Sen and Sisir Kumar Basu.

( 2 ) AS regards Bibhuti Bhusan Sen, the positio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document