ROHTAS INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. P N GOUR RECEIVER OF MURLI HILLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two appeals and two applications in civil revision arising out of two orders passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge Sasaram, in Title Suit No. 18/87 of 1950/1949. Miscellaneous Appeal No. 132 is directed against the order dated 2-3-1954, and Civil Revision No. 440 is also concerned with the same order and has been filed to obviate any possible objection that no appeal lies. Miscellaneous Appeal No. 134 is directed against the order dated 20-1-1954 passed by the same Subordinate Judge in the above suit and Civil Revision No. 445 has been filed likewise against the same order dated 20-1-1954, as a matter of precaution in case it is held that no appeal lies against this order as well. The appeals and civil revision applications are by Rohtas Industries Ltd. ,and Dalmia Jain & Co., Ltd., and the respondents are (1) The Receiver, Murli Hills, appointed by the Court in the above suit, (2) Kalyanpur Lime Works Ltd., who were plaintiffs in the suit and (3) The State of Bihar through the Collector of Shahabad, one of the defendants in the suit.

(2.) The aforesaid title suit was instituted by the plaintiffs for specific performance of a contract for lease granted in their favour by the State of Bihar. The suit was decreed by the trial Court but, on appeal, the High Court set aside the judgment and dismissed the suit. The plaintiffs went up in appeal to the Supreme Court and the ap-peal was allowed in terms of compensation payable to the plaintiffs by the State of Bihar. It appears that Mr. P. N. Gour, Advocate, was made receiver by virtue of an order passed by the High Court. It may be stated that Dalmia Jain & Company were the managing agents of Rohtas Industries Ltd.

(3.) The receiver submitted his accounts duly in respect of the amount payable by Rohtas Industries Ltd. to the Court on account of the limestone supplied to them from time to time from the quarries at the upper and lower Murli Hills. The accounts were audited by Messrs. Darbari & Co., Chaptered Accountants. They submitted a report dated 4-4-1952, for the accounts relating to the period 21-11-1950 to 31-12-1951. A second report was submitted on 31-10-1952, pertaining to the period 1-1-1952 to 15-10-1952. It appears that objections were filed to the auditor's report by Messrs. Dalmia Jain & Co. Ltd. and Rohtas Industries Ltd., who were no party to the title suit in which the above receivership proceeding arose, had filed a claim case. It may be stated that the main objection raised, by Rohtas Industries was that the accounts of the receiver in respect of the claim laid against them should hot be passed unless they had an opportunity to examine the account books of the receiver relating to (a) raising reports, (b) loading reports (c) stock registers and other necessary documents, in the absence of which they were not in a position to judge the correctness of the figures in the receiver's accounts. The specific objection related to the following heads: (1) the receiver supplied bad quality of limestone and. therefore, the price charged was excessive; (2) the quantity of limestone received was less than what was filled for; (3) the royalty charged in the bills was at the rate of -/9/9 pies per ton, whereas the correct rate should have been only -/4/- annas per ton according to the Mineral Concession Rules; (4) there should have been ho charge for the removal of overburden; and (5) the amount charged for Patra was excessive as the rate was that of limestone, whereas it should have been at a much lower rate as it means stone of 70 per cent., and below total carbonate. There were also general objections with regard to the receiver not having taken proper care to keep down the costs of supply of limestones to the objectors. The figure at which the claim of the objec-tors was laid was Rs. 4,67,723/10/6, and making allowance for the proper claims by the receiver the company demanded a sum of Rs. 2,28,677/5/- as the amount payable to them by the receiver.