B. Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) This matter has been placed before us pursuant to the decision of the Supreme Court dated April 28, 2010 by which the Supreme Court remitted the matter back to this Court to examine afresh the entire issue as to whether the Receiver had discharged his functions properly and complied with the directions. It was mentioned in the order of remand that if it appeared on fresh investigation that the Receiver had not complied with the directions of the Court, appropriate action should be initiated. The Apex Court further directed that this Court should take note of the fact that the Receiver had, at no time, converted the funds to his personal use, but had maintained it separately.
(2.) Specific direction was given upon this Court to decide as to who is entitled to the disputed amount and to pass appropriate orders and if the Appellants before the Supreme Court were found to be entitled to the same, they would be entitled to the same with interest up to the date of payment. This Court was directed to give full opportunity to the Receiver to explain his conduct and to decide the issue uninfluenced by the prima facie findings recorded by the Supreme Court in the said order.
(3.) The facts giving rise to filing of the present application may be summed up thus: a) The Appellant of this appeal filed a suit for specific performance of contract against the Respondents. The suit was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in the year 1981 and the Respondent filed an appeal against the dismissal of the suit before the Division Bench. b) During the pendency of the appeal, the Plaintiff and the Defendants arrived at a settlement and in terms of the said settlement, the suit was decreed on August 5, 1986. Under the terms of settlement, the Defendants agreed to sell 90 kottahs of land to the Plaintiff or his nominee at a price of Rs. 10,000/ - per kottah. c) Clauses 3, 6 and 7 of the terms of settlement which are relevant, are extracted below: 3. Immediately after the filing of these terms of settlement, the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendants a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/ - (Rupees Three Lacs only) in part payment of the consideration and the balance sum of Rs. 6,00,000/ - (Rupees Six Lacs only) shall be paid of the time of completion of the conveyance and if several deeds of conveyance are executed for the parts of portions of the said premises then and in that event the said amount of consideration shall be apportioned and such amount as apportioned shall be paid of the time of execution of each deed of conveyance after taking into account the advance payment of Rs. 3,00,000/ - (Rupees Three Lacs only) paid by the Plaintiff. 6. After approval of the title by the Plaintiff if the Defendants fail to obtain a certificate under Sec. 230A of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 or fail to obtain also permission of the competent authority if required under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling Regulations) Act, 1976 as required then and in that event, Mr. Dip Narayan Mitra is appointed Receiver over and in respect of the said property without authority and without remuneration and is directed to execute a Deed of Conveyance and/or conveyance in favour of the Plaintiff or his nominee as provided for under these terms of settlement. 7. Simultaneously with the execution of the Deed of Conveyance in accordance with these terms of settlement as hereinafter mentioned the Plaintiff shall make over to the Defendants or to the Receiver as the case may be the balance consideration money less any amount which may be paid or deducted by the Plaintiff on account of municipal taxes and other outgoings in respect of the said property in accordance with these Terms of Settlement. In that event, the balance consideration is made over to the Receiver the same shall be made over by the Receiver to the Defendants and upon such payment the Receiver shall stand discharged and filing of the account by the Receiver shall be dispensed with. Pursuant to the Clause (6) of the terms of settlement, a Receiver was appointed. In pursuance of the said settlement, after 5 payment of Rs. 3,00,000/ - to the Appellants, the balance sale consideration of Rs. 6,00,000/ - was deposited with the Receiver. d) By letters dated 7.10.1986, 11.12.1986 and 22.12.1986, the Defendants informed the Receiver that pursuant to the consent decree, they had transferred the suit premises to eleven nominees of the Plaintiff under different deeds of sale and gave the following instructions to the Receiver in regard to Rs. 6,00,000/ - deposited by the purchasers: It has been agreed between us and Mr. Basant Kumar Almal that out of the said amount of Rs. 6,00,000/ - lying presently with you a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/ - will be paid to Park Services Pvt. Ltd. of 119, Park Street, Calcutta towards payment of the statutory liability and other outgoings in respect of the said premises and such payment shall be a full and effectual discharge of the payment to be made by you. Out of the balance sum of Rs. 3,00,000/ - you are requested to prepare three cheques of Rs. 1,00,000/ - each in the names of Amal Kumar Ghosh, Debabrata Ghosh and Subrata Ghosh respectively. e) Accordingly, the learned Receiver paid Rs. 3,00,000/ - to the three Defendants @ Rs. 1,00,000/ - and the Receiver issued certificate dated 2nd January, 1987 to the Defendants wherein he confirmed the receipt of the instructions of the Defendants as follows: As advised and agreed, I have retained a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/ - (Rupees three lakhs only) for payment to Park Services Private Limited of No. 119, Park Street, Calcutta on account of statutory liabilities and other outgoings in respect of premises No. 8/2, Palm Avenue, Calcutta in terms of three letters dated 7th October, 1986 written by Sri Amal Kumar Ghosh, 11th December, 1986 written by Sri Debabrata Ghosh and 22nd December, 1986 written by Sri Subrata Ghosh to me. f) It appears that the Receiver, however, did not pay the sum of Rs. 3,00,000/ - to the Park Services Pvt. Ltd. and out of the said sum, he paid a sum of Rs. 1,08,341.64p. by cheque dated 13th January, 1987 to the Calcutta Municipal Corporation towards the property tax dues in respect of the premises and deposited the balance amount in a fixed deposit. g) On 6th December, 1998, the Defendants wrote to the Receiver requesting for a statement of account and also information as to whether the Receiver had incurred any expenses in respect of statutory liabilities etc. on their behalf. The Receiver immediately gave reply on 28th December, 1998 informing the Defendants that as on that date, as Receiver, he was holding a sum of Rs. 5,29,717/ - in fixed deposit towards the balance. h) Thereafter, the Defendants wrote to the Receiver on 8th January, 1999 requesting for payment of the amount. The Receiver replied on January 21, 1999 stating that he would release the amount to the Defendants on their obtaining 'no objection certificate' from Park Services Pvt. Ltd. The Defendants did not furnish such 'no objection certificate' from Park Services Pvt. Ltd., but again wrote another letter dated 24th March, 2005 calling upon the Receiver to pay the amount that was held by him as Receiver. i) The Receiver sent a reply dated March 28, 2005 to the Defendants stating that whatever amount that had been lying with him had been made over by him to M/s. R. L. Gaggar, Solicitor & Advocate, representing the purchasers of the said premises in compliance with Mr. Gaggar's letter dated 1st August, 2002 and therefore, as far as he was concerned, the chapter was closed and stood discharged. It appears that the Receiver paid a sum of Rs. 9,23,998.36p. which was the balance amount with interest accrued till that date to Mr. R.L. Gaggar on 23rd August, 2002. j) In such circumstances, the Defendants filed an application before this Court seeking for a direction upon the Receiver to render accounts and make payments of the amounts due to them. A Division Bench of this Court after hearing the parties and the Receiver on 8th December, 2008 held that reference to Park Services Pvt. Ltd. in the Defendants' letters dated 7.10.1986, 11.12.1986 and 22.12.1986 was in discharge of the obligation of the Defendants to the Plaintiff in terms of the consent decree on account of municipal taxes and other outgoings and therefore, the application was liable to be dismissed. k) Being dissatisfied, the Defendants filed a Special Leave Application and as indicated earlier, the Supreme Court has set aside the order passed by the Division Bench and directed this Court to decide the dispute afresh with further direction upon the Plaintiff to deposit the entire amount of Rs. 9,23,998.36p. which was received from the Receiver before this Court within one month from the date of passing of the order for being disbursed in accordance with the order that will be passed by this Court.;