Desai, J. - (1.) M/s. Jethabhai Khatau and Co., a partnership firm is the appellant in all the three appeals. The respondents in all the three appeals are: (1) Luxmi Narayan Cotton Mills Ltd., an incorporated Company ('company' for short), (2) State of West Bengal, (3) S. K. Dutta, who was for some time a receiver appointed by the High Court; (4) Grindlays Bank, ('Bank' for short), having a fixed deposit account in the name of Receiver. S. K. Dutta on behalf of Luxmi Narayan Cotton Mills Ltd., (5) A. K. Dutta. and (6) R. C. Deb, who claim to have been appointed as joint receivers after removal of Shri. S. K. Dutta.
(2.) Appellant filed suit No. 1194/66 against the company or the original side of the Calcutta High Court to recover a certain amount due under two separate heads. By the time the suit came up for hearing the Board of Directors of the Ist respondent company was superseded and one Gurudas Sharma was appointed as an Administrator. The Administrator on behalf of the Ist respondent company entered into a compromise with the appellant in respect of the claim in suit of the appellant and after obtaining leave of the Court to settle the matter, invited a consent decree by which the company was held liable and directed to pay Rs. 2,85,000/- with interest thereon at 6% per annum, from January 6, 1970, the date of the decree, till realisation. The Ist respondent company was given an option to pay the decretal amount by monthly instalments of Rs. 5,000/-, the first instalment becoming due and payable on March 15, 1970, and each subsequent instalment to be paid by 15th day of the next succeeding month. The default clause in the consent decree provided that if the company committed default in payment of any two instalments within the time stipulated in the decree, the whole of the decretal amount and the interest on the balance of the decretal amount will become due and payable at once. It appears that the Ist respondent company received Rs. 15,00,000/- from the Custodian of Enemy Property in respect of its cotton Mills situated in Narayanganj Bangladesh. The 3rd respondent S. K. Dutta appears to have been appointed a receiver in respect of this compensation amount and he appears to have deposited Rs. 8,40,000/- out of the compensation amount in fixed deposit account evidenced by receipt Nos. 1002-2539 with the Bank at its Netaji Subhash Road Branch, Calcutta. The appellant by an order dated April 5, 1978, of the Calcutta High Court, obtained leave to execute the decree by attachment of funds lying in the hands of the 3rd respondent receiver S. K. Dutta (Annexure 'D'). By the date of the order Rs. 4,20,702.94 p. had become due and payable under the decree. Pursuant to this order an interim attachment was levied under Order 21 Rule 52 C. P. C., on the amount covered by the aforementioned fixed deposit receipt, and accordingly the Master of the Court, Shri S. K. Ghosh informed the 3rd respondent receiver by the writ of the Court dated April 12, 1978, that the receiver shall hold the money under the fixed deposit account subject to such order as may be made respecting the same in the suit in which he had been appointed a receiver and subject to further orders of the Court (Annexure 'E'). The Master confirmed the interim attachment by his order dated April 24, 1978 (Annexure 'F'). On May 4, 1978 upon a petition by the appellant the Court directed the receiver 3rd respondent to pay the sum of Rupees 4,20,702.94 to the appellant decree-holder out of the amount in the fixed deposit account of the judgment debtor with the Bank in fixed deposit receipt Nos. 1002-2539 standing in the name of the receiver which was attached in terms of order dated April 12, 1978, as confirmed by the order dated April 24, 1978. Presumably neither the 3rd respondent receiver nor the Bank effectively implemented the order dated May 4, 1978. whereupon the appellant moved the Court during the vacation on May 24, 1979, for an appropriate direction and a learned single Judge of the Calcutta High Court working as vacation Judge gave the directions prayed for. As this order has some legal consequences in this matter it would be advantageous to extract it. It reads as under: "There will be an order in terms of prayers (a) and (b) of the petition. Prayer (a):That the receiver Sudhir Kumar Dutta be forthwith directed to instruct and intimate to the Grindlays Bank Ltd., Netaji Subhash Road Branch, Calcutta, to pay a sum of Rupees 4,20,702.94 p. to the petitioner decree-holder in terms of the payment order dated 4th May, 1978 out of the amount of the Fixed Deposit of the judgment-debtor with Grindlays Bank Ltd., in Fixed Deposit Receipt No. 1002-2539 which has been lying attached in terms of the order dated 12th April. 1978 and is confirmed by the order dated 24th April, 1978 and the said Grindlays Bank Ltd., Netaji Subhash Road, Branch, Calcutta, be directed to pay the said sum of Rs. 4,20,702.94 p. to the petitioner decree-holder: Prayer (b):That Grinlays Bank Ltd., Netaji Subhash Road Branch. Calcutta, be directed to pay the said sum of Rupees 4,20,702.94 p. to the petitioner decree-holder in terms of the payment order dated 4th May, 1978, out of the said fixed deposit receipt Nos. 1002-2539." Effectively this order of the Court directed the receiver to pay the amount therein mentioned to the decree-holder and the Bank, the keeper of the Fixed deposit account of the receiver was also put under an obligation not to raise any objection on receiver withdrawing the money and paying the same to the decree-holder. In fact, upon its true construction, the Bank was also under an obligation to take effective steps to pay the amount mentioned in the order to the decree-holder. It appears that these directions were not obeyed. Consequently, the appellant moved the Court for holding the 3rd respondent receiver S. K. Dutta and the 4th respondent Bank in contempt and for passing appropriate order for punishing them for contempt unless they purged themselves of the contempt.
(3.) On June 7, 1979. when the petition for taking action against the alleged contemners came up before the Court, respondents 5 and 6 appear to have been appointed as joint receivers. The Bank appeared through its counsel Mr. Majumdar and the joint receivers appeared for themselves as well as for their respective clients, namely, Ist respondent company and the 2nd respondent State of West Bengal. Mr. Majumdar, learned advocate for the Bank undertook to the Court to comply with the order dated May 24, 1979, to pay the amount therein mentioned to M/s. Maharia and Co. Advocate-on-record for the appellant. The Court directed that on such payment being made the Bank shall be absolved from all the liability in respect of the said amount. The Court specifically noted that in view of the undertaking given by the learned advocate on behalf of the Manager of the Bank, the Court was not inclined to pass any order in respect of the contempt application and the application for taking action in contempt was accordingly disposed of. At this stage, Mr. A. K. Dutta appearing for the Ist respondent company prayed for stay of a portion of the order of the Court which prayer was specifically refused observing that as no fresh orders have been passed on that day affecting the interests of the said Company, no question of granting stay of a portion of the order arises. The Court specifically directed that all the parties and particularly the Manager of the Bank should act on the signed copy of the minutes. It appears that the solemn undertaking given by the Bank was not acted upon. Probably soon thereafter some interim orders were obtained as would transpire from the order of Mrs. Padma Khastgir, J. dated March 7, 1980. When the matter came up on March 7, 1980, the Court observed that there will be no order on the applications before it save and except that the receiver will hold the balance sum of Rs. 4,19,697,06 p. till further order of the Court. The Court also declined to grant prayer for discharge of the receiver S. K. Dutta, the 3rd respondent, because notice of the application was not served upon him. This observation would, however, establish that till March, 7,1980, the 3rd respondent was not discharged as a receiver though from the recitals in the order dated June 7, 1979, it appears that by that date A. K. Dutta and R. C. Deb were functioning as joint receivers. In this order it was distinctly made clear that except what is stated specifically in the order all interim orders were vacated. However, the Court at the instance of joint receivers stayed the portion of the order dated March 7, 1980, for a period of a fortnight. To clarify the position it may be mentioned that when the Court directed that balance of Rs. 4,19,697.06 will be held by the receiver it would imply that that would be the balance after payment of the amount directed to be paid to the appellant. Specifically this order has the effect of confirming the earlier order dated May 24, 1979, to pay the decretal amount to the appellant.;