M.B.SHARMA, J. - (1.) THIS order will dispose of a preliminary objection raised by non -petitioner No. 3, State Bank of India, Sanganeri Gate Branch, Jaipur, in additional pleas (para 1) that a court receiver has been appointed in the suit by the Bombay High Court and leave of the Bombay High Court has not been obtained for initiating the proceedings by the petitioner, official liquidator, against the receiver and the proceedings, therefore, are liable to be dismissed on this ground.
(2.) IN Company Petition No. 10 of 1980, this court had made an order that the company, Jaipur Spinning and Weaving Mills Pvt. Ltd. (In Liquidation), be wound up. The said order was made on December 2, 1983, and the official liquidator attached to this court was appointed as official liquidator of the company in liquidation. A vast chunk of land described in Schedules 1 and 2 to the annexures to the present application which is owned by the company in liquidation has been leased out to respondent No. 1, Podar Mills Ltd., Bombay, under two registered lease deeds on December 30, 1964, and August 23, 1964. It is the case of the official liquidator, the petitioner, that there has been breach of the condition of the aforesaid lease and that he is entitled to take into his possession the entire demised premises and the grounds are contained in paras 10 (from 10.1 to 10.6), 11 and 12 of the application. When the application under Sections 456, 457, 460(4) of the Companies Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act'), read with Rules 232 and 233 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 (for short, 'the Rules'), was filed on April 27, 1988, the official liquidator had arrayed (1) Podar Mills Ltd., (2) Shri Vinay R. Podar, and (3) the State Bank of India, Jaipur, as the respondents to the petition. When the summonses were served on the aforesaid respondents, a reply was filed in which it was stated that, in a suit filed by the State Bank of India in the Bombay High Court against Podar Mills, a court receiver has been appointed and, therefore, Podar Mills could not be arrayed as one of the respondents and that the application filed by the official liquidator should be dismissed. The State Bank of India, in its reply as said earlier in para 1 of the additional pleas, raised a plea that the application is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed inasmuch as the leave of the Bombay High Court which has appointed the receiver has not been obtained by the official liquidator for initiating the proceedings. There is no dispute that the Bombay High Court, in Suit No. 3607 of 1988, under its order dated March 7, 1988, has appointed a court receiver so far as Podar Mills Ltd. and more so its Jaipur undertakings are concerned.
(3.) IN the reply, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have taken a plea that the court receiver appointed by the Bombay High Court was a necessary party. The petitioner filed an application in this court on April 10, 1990, in which this court had directed that the receiver may be impleaded as a party to the application. The said application was filed in pursuance of the order of this court dated March 9, 1990.;