The receiver can be compensated on the principle of 'quantum meruit' for his work done during the term of receivership.

Padhye, J—A few facts which are relevant for the decision of the question involved in this revision are as stated below. The non applicants (who shall hereinafter be called debtors) were adjudicated insolvents on 4-10-1938 on their own application dated 16-6-1932. The order of adjudication was annulled on 3-4-1935 as a result of a composition scheme sanctioned by the insolvency Court. The debtors failed to carry out the terms of the composition scheme and consequently they were re-adjudged insolvents on 26-3-1941. On 18-3-1941, Mr. K.S. Misra, Advocate (the applicant in this Court) was appointed a receiver and his remuneration was fixed at 3 per cent. on realizations and 2 per cent. on distributions. He continued as a receiver till 31-8-1944, when his tenure as a receiver ended as a result of an order of annulment passed by the insolvency Court Under Section 43, Provincial Insolvency Act. As a part of the same order date 31-8-1944, the insolvency Court again vested the insolvents' property in Mr. K.S. Misra with direction to bring it to sale with all speed. Thus the property remained vested in him as appointee, of the insolvency Court from 31-8-1944 to 21-11-1944 when the insolvency Court finally gave up its control over the insolvents' property and it vested in the debtors.

2. The only saleable property of the debtors was their share in the absolute occupancy fields. But for the interference and delaying tactics of the debtors, this property could have beer brought to sale immediately and sold away in 1941. In that event the receiver would have been undoubtedly entitled to his commission on the sale proceeds and on the amount distributed amongst the creditors. In fact, however, the receiver was not able to sell the property and the position now is that in spite of his work as a receiver he is entitled to nothing by way of commission under the terms of his appointment which were fixed within the limits permitted by Rule 14 of the High Court Rules framed Under Section 79, Provincial Insolvency Act.

3. I have no doubt that the receiver is not entitled to any commission under the express terms of the contract of appointment, howsoever unfortunate this may be. In Liladhar Chatrabhuj v. Mathuradas Gokuldas, 1934 AIR(Bom) 158 their Lordships held that where parties have entered into an express agreement under which the plaintiff was entitled to get his brokerage if he brought about the transaction on certain terms, he can be entitled to his remuneration only in case of success, no matter what amount of labour and trouble he might be put to. That was also the view expressed in Howard Houlder and Partners Ltd. v. Manx Isles Steamship Company, 1923 1 KB 110 and I respectfully agree with that view.

4. . The learned Counsel for the applicant urged that the payments alleged to be made by the debtors privately to their creditors should be deemed to have been realized and distributed by the receiver and the receiver's commission should be calculated on that basis; he relied on Briji Kessoor Laul v. Official Assignee Madras, 1920 AIR(Mad) 219. This contention has however no force in view of the fact that at the time the debtors satisfied their debts privately they were no longer insolvents, the insolvency proceedings as such having already terminated as a result of the order of annulment.

5. It was correctly pointed out by the Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Veerayya v. Srinivasa Rao, 1935 AIR(Mad) 826 that an order Under Section 37 does not continue insolvency proceedings for all purposes and the person appointed Under Section 37 has no longer, by the mere fact of his appointment, powers which a receiver has under the Act. The debtors were therefore completely free to satisfy their debts privately and to save their property from being sold away for the satisfaction of those debts. I do not also agree that the private satisfaction of debts by the debtors could be regarded as a collusive or fraudulent act on their part.

6. The two c