ORDER :- This civil revision petition raises important questions of law as to whether a receiver can claim from the estate amounts advanced and paid by him during the course of his administration, and claim contemporaneously a lien over the liquid assets of the estate, so as to take preference over the mortgage decree-holder at whose instance the estate was being administered by him, and whether by necessity the receiver should file a suit to realise such amounts advanced by him, even though the advancement of such moneys is not in question, and incidentally whether the claim would be barred by limitation.

2. The petitioner who is the receiver appointed in the lower court, was so appointed at the instance of the plaintiff in the suit who had a mortgage security over a press known as the Rajah Power Press, Royapettah. The receiver was allowed certain remuneration for his management and running of the press. He was in actual management of the same between 15-4-1961 till. 31-12-1963, and the final accounts relating to the same were passed on 1-2-1965. During such running of the press by him. he is said to have advanced moneys from and out of his own pocket for necessities of the business such as paying weekly' wages of workmen. payment of rent to the owners, recasting of the types, recasting of the rollers, repairing the machines, payment into court to avert attachment of the press, payment of gratuity to workmen while retrenching them, purchase of papers and printing ink etc. The contention of the Receiver is that all these amounts were evidenced by receipt books and vouchers and are reflected in the Day books and ledgers maintained by him in the usual course. After the passing of the final accounts, the press was directed to be sold as it was running at a loss. The receiver has come forward with this application for payment to him as a preferential creditor to the estate, a sum of Rs. 7204-15 from and out of the sale proceeds of the press which is admittedly in court deposit.

3. The plaintiff at whose instance the receiver was appointed, objects to such a payment on a memo filed by the Receiver on the ground that the receiver did not obtain directions or sanction of court for the incurring of such expenditure. He also says that he has been objecting to such moneys being lent by the receiver without authority of court. He pleads that he is not aware of the passing of the receiver's accounts from time to time and even of the passing of the final account on 1-2-1965. In any event, he says he can rank himself only as a simple money creditor. The defendants who have apparently no interest in the claim of the receiver have also raised objections that the receiver ought to have obtained sanction of court and particularly when the press was working at a loss for five years, and that in any event the press having been sold free from encumbrances, it should be deemed to be free of the charges incurred by the receiver as well.

4. The receiver, in reply, contends contra and says that moneys were advanced by him for necessity and that as he was entitled generally under orders of court to be a receiver to administer and run the press, he bona fide incurred such necessitous expenditure and he also claims a lien over the sale proceeds now in court.

5. It is not in dispute that the Receiver discharged his obligations as an officer of court by filing from time to time accounts relating to his administration. Such accounts filed by him were passed by court after notice to the plaintiff and the defendants. The lower court categorically finds that the receiver has advanced the sum of Rupees 7204-15 as loan and that it could not accept the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that no notice was given to the plaintiff at the time when the accounts were passed including the final account on 1-2-1965. At the time of passing of such receiver's accounts there is an obligation on court to see and check the accounts with reference to the voucher

Click Here to Read the rest of this document