SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1986 Supreme(Cal) 391

High Court Of Calcutta
SUKUMAR CHAKRAVARTY, GOBINDA CHANDRA CHATTERJEE
S.B.I. - Appellant
Versus
JAYSHREE CERAMICS PVT.LTD. - Respondent
A. F. O. O. T.  614  Of  1986
Decided On : 09/19/1986

Advocates Appeared:
A.MITRA, GURU SADAY DE, MALAY BASU, P.MALICK, TAPAS BANERJI

The principles for appointment of a Receiver and the factors considered in determining whether it is just and convenient to appoint a Receiver.

Headnote:

MORTGAGE SUIT - RECEIVER - APPOINTMENT - PRINCIPLES - DELAY IN FILING APPLICATION - NO IMMINENT DANGER TO SECURITIES - APPOINTMENT NOT JUST AND CONVENIENT.

Fact of the Case:

State Bank of India filed a mortgage suit against Jayshree Ceramic Pvt. Ltd. and its Directors for recovery of loan advanced on mortgage, pledge, and hypothecation of different properties. The bank filed an application for appointment of a Receiver, alleging that the defendant company was endangering the securities by not paying the claims and that there was a likelihood of a winding-up petition or attachment before judgment by other creditors. The trial court rejected the application for ad interim appointment of the Receiver.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the principles for appointment of a Receiver are: (i) plaintiff must show a strong case, good title, or special equity, and that the property is in danger of being wasted; (ii) a Receiver can be appointed where the property is in medio, but strong reasons are needed to interfere with legal possession; and (iii) the application should be made promptly. The court found that there was delay in filing the application, no imminent danger to the securities, and that appointing a Receiver would stop the defendant's business, which was not just and convenient.

Issues: 1. Whether the principles for appointment of a Receiver were met in this case? 2. Whether the delay in filing the application and the absence of imminent danger to the securities justified the rejection of the application?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The principles for appointment of a Receiver require a strong case, good title, or special equity, imminent danger to the property, and prompt application. The court found that these principles were not met in this case. 2. The delay in filing the application and the absence of imminent danger to the securities justified the rejection of the application. Appointing a Receiver would have stopped the defendant's business, which was not just and convenient.

Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the appeal and the application for appointment of a Receiver. The interim order appointing the Receiver was vacated.

SUKUMAR CHAKRAVARTY, J.

( 1 ) THE State Bank of India as the appellant-plaintiff in F. M. A. T. No. 614 of 1986 has filed this application for appointment of the Receiver in respect of the properties as mentioned in Schs. I to IV of the petition till the disposal of the aforesaid appeal with a prayer for ad interim appointment of the Receiver pending the hearing of the application for appointment of the Receiver.

( 2 ) THE aforesaid F. M. A. T. No. 614 of 1986 has arisen out of order D/-22-11-85 in the Mortgage Title Suit No. 47 of 1985 in the Court of the learned Assistant District Judge, Asansole, whereby the learned Assistant District Judge while issuing the notice upon the defendants of the suit in connection with the plaintiff's application for appointment of the Receiver, has rejected the plaintiff's prayer for ad interim appointment of the Receiver.

( 3 ) THE Bench of this Court, presided over by Mr. Basak, J. and Mr. Das Ghosh, J. by its order dt. 4-8-86 admitted the appeal and by its order of the same date with regard to plaintiff-appellant's application for appointment of the Receiver, gave the direction for hearing of the said application as the contested one and pending the hearing of that application an ad interim appointment of the Receiver was made ex parte, without giving any direction as to the Receiver's function.

( 4 ) AS desired by both the parties, the appeal has also been heard along with the application for appointment of the Receiver till the disposal of the appeal, as the result of the application for appointment of the Receiver in the appeal will decide the fate of the appeal itself. Our preliminary suggestion to direct the lower court to expeditiously dispose of the application for appointment of the Receiver by disposing of the appeal accordingly without going into merits was not accepted by the appellant's learned Advocate who rather urged the court to dispose of the appeal and the application for appointment of the Receiver filed in the appeal on merits and, accordingly, we are doing so with our apprehension at the same time that our opinion on merits in the appeal and in the application under consideration may embarrass the lower court while disposing of the application for appointment of the Receiver.

( 5 ) THE State Bank of India filed the aforesaid Mortgage Title Suit No. 47 of 1985 against Jayshree Ceramic Pvt. Ltd. and its Directors for recovery of the loan advanced to the Company in different accounts on mortgage, pledge and hypothecation of different kinds of properties, as the defendants did not pay the sum of Rs. 24,31 000/- and odds with interest up to April 1985, due to the plaintiff in spite of demands. The suit was filed in June, 1985. The application for appointment of the Receiver was filed in Nov. 1985 on the allegations, inter alia, that the defendant 1, Company, was endangering the securities by not paying the claims and that there was every likelihood of filing a petition for winding up of the unit of defendant No. 1 by any of the several creditors of the defendant 1 Company, that any of such creditor while filing a suit may get the securities attached before judgement and that the terms of the agreement in connection with credit facilities between the parties permit the plaintiff to ask for appointment of the Receiver in case of default in payment of the dues to the plaintiff.

( 6 ) THE learned Assistant District Judge while issuing the notice for hearing the application for appointment of the Receiver rejected the prayer for ad interim appointment of the Receiver on the ground of delay in filing the petition for appointment of the Receiver and on the ground that no materials could be placed before the court showing any imminent danger to the securities by any attempt for disposal of the securities.

( 7 ) THE application for appointment of the Receiver filed in the appeal concerned contains the similar ground as were taken in the petition for appointment of the Receiver







Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top