GHOSE, J. - (1.) THIS is an application by the appellant for stay of the order under appeal dated 14th January, 1980 passed by the court of the first instance. By and under the said order the court of the first instance restrained the appellant from dealing with or disposing of its property known as Kumai Tea Estate. By and under the said order the Court of the first instance also directed that an aggregate sum of Rs. 8 lakhs which has been lying with the Union Bank of India at India Exchange Place Branch to be kept separately in Suspense A/c and the appellant was restrained from withdrawing any part of the said amount until the disposal of the suit.
(2.) AGAINST the said judgment and order this application has been made as stated hereinbefore after preferring an appeal against the said judgment and order of the single Judge for reliefs mentioned in the petition. Mr. Anindya Mitra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the impugned judgment and the order should not have been passed by the learned judge of the court of the first instance on the following grounds (i) After the property or assets of the appellant had passed out of the seisin of the court, the court had no power to indemnify the Receiver for any sums that the Receiver was entitled to receive admitting that the Receiver was entitled to any such sum. (ii) Admittedly in the instant case the properties and assets over which the impugned order has been passed went out of seisin of the court at the time of passing of such order. (iii) The Receiver was entitled to any of the expenses which he had properly incurred. Until the court sanctions such expenses either before such expenses are incurred or after they are incurred it cannot be said that any money is due to the Receiver as is the case in the instant mutter and as such the Receiver is not entitled to claim any relief from the court in regard to any of his alleged dues. (iv) In any event, Kumai Tea Estate, the property of the appellant, was there and the value of the said Tea Estate, would be much more than the claim of the Receiver, if any, against the appellant, so the moneys lying in the Bank should be released.
(3.) MR . Mitra in support of his submissions relied on Halsbury's Laws of England, volume 32, 3rd Edition Page 428 Paragraph 710; Page 438 Paragraph 734 and Page 439 Paragraph 735.;