Anil Kumar Sen, J. - (1.) Four matters having a common background and arising out of inter connected set of facts have been heard together-all of them being assigned to us by the learned Chief Justice. Of the four matters, two are Rules issued on as many applications for contempt filed by Messrs. Effective Trade House Private Limited, one is an application filed by the Joint Receivers and the other is a writ appeal directed against an interlocutory order. All these matters centre round a consent order dated September I, 1977, passed by this Court in disposing of an appeal arising out of a proceeding for appointment of Receiver, being F. M. A. 725 of 1977. For consideration of the issues involved in these matters it would be necessary to refer to the facts in some details which are set out hereunder.
(2.) On October 14, 1976, United Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the bank), one of the nationalised banks, instituted Title Suit No. 114 of 1976 in the 10th Court of the learned Subordinate Judge at Alipore against United Flour Mills Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Company) for recovery of a sum of Rs. 65,72,292.57 being the amount then due on account of loan and advances made to the Company from time to time on enforcement of a charge on the hypothecated assets and properties of the Company.
(3.) In this suit, both the plaintiff bank and the defendant Company filed applications for appointment of Receiver. While the bank wanted a Receiver to be appointed to take possession of the Company's assets and properties and sell the same, the Company wanted such an appointment for running the mill. Both these applications being heard together, the learned Subordinate Judge disposed them of by his order dated April 23, 1977. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the plaintiff had not been able to make out any case for appointment of a Receiver to sell off the assets and properties of the Company at that stage though "the bank can surely have a Receiver appointed with a direction to take possession of the securities in view of the feet that a huge amount remains outstanding on account of the loan". He further held that the Receiver so appointed should take charge of all the securities but at the same time will allow the defendant to run the business with those securities. Accordingly, two learned Advocates Shri Rupendra Kumar Ghosh ann Sri Dilip Kumar Mukherji were appointed Joint Receivers who were directed to take possession of all the securities and then make a survey and inventory of all the charged and hypothecated assets including book debts both present and future. By that order, the existing management of the Company was given liberty to "run the business with the side assets but under strict control and supervision of the Receiver", they were to submit fortnightly reports of their transaction both to the Receivers and to the bank, all transactions were to be operated through a special account to be opened with the plaintiff-bank. The plaintiff-bank was given the option to allow further and new credit facilities to the defendant Company for running its business and the order further directed that in the event the bank choose not to do so the defendant Co. would have liberty to secure fresesh credit facilities from any other banking establishment but without encumbering the securities hypothecated to the bank and that such banking accommodation was to be secured through the Receivers and on notice to the plaintiff. The plaintiff bank felt aggrieved by the order so passed by the learned Subordinate Judge and preferred the above appeal to this Court, namely, F. M. A. 725 of 1977.;