- (1.) By the order dated 9/05/1989 this court directed that after the completion of the inventory, Gurcharan Singh shall act as a Receiver "to effectuate the winding-up proceedings" and pending dissolution he may "carry on day-to-day business of the firm" including the pending export project on hand but he should not undertake any new business. By our subsequent order dated 25/11/1991, we clarified that the underlying idea of the order was to effectuate winding up and complete the business which was in the pipeline without undertaking any new business whatsoever. It was pointed out to us that the Receiver instead of carrying on day-to-day business which was in the pipeline was undertaking new business as was obvious from the sudden wise in the stock-in-trade. After explaining the purport of the order of 9/05/1989, we directed the Receiver to file an affidavit clarifying (1 whether he has at any point of time after the passing of our order dated 9/05/1989 entertained new orders for the supply of export material, and (2 whether he has undertaken any new business in regard to the firm at all after taking over as Receiver. In response thereto, he has filed an affidavit stating that he has not entertained any new export order after 9/05/1989 and has not undertaken any new business or new business venture after taking over as receiver. However, while explaining the sudden rise in the stock-in-trade he states as under: "The stock-in-trade has risen beyond what it was at the time of taking over as Receiver because he carried on day-to-day business of the firm as permitted by the order of 9/05/1989. The stock-in-trade has been fluctuating per day-to-day business and requirement. "
(2.) He then goes on to explain as to what he understood by the expression "day-to-day business" in paragraph 3 of the affidavit as under: "Day-to-day business means that he was to carry on the business of purchase and sale of the finished goods by respondent 2 and also sale of goods manufactured at Ludhiana in the market. "
(3.) It would appear from this statement that he was effecting purchases instead of clearing of the available stock-in-trade only. His explanation regarding the spurt in stock-in-trade is far from convincing. It, therefore, appears that there is substance in the grievance made by the opposite party.;