N JAYADEVAPPA Vs. G NANJUNDAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is concerned with the validity of an order of the Addl Civil Judge, Shimoga, fixing the remuneration of a Receiver appointed in the suit for dissolution of a partnership firm. The firm is engaged in operating stage carriages. It has in all about six route permits in the Dist of Shimoga. The monthy collection of the fares is roughly estimated to be a lakh of rupees. There is separate staff for the operation of the vehicles and also for its maintenance. The Court appointed an Advocate of the local Bar as Receiver fixing his remuneration at 7 per cent on the realisation of the assets of the firm, despite the objection of the petitioner that a fixed remuneration would be sufficient. The Court has relied upon the State Govt Order No. LAW 20 LCL 73, d/.28th March, 1974 fixing the remuneration of the Official Receivers at 7 per cent on the assets realised in insolvency proceedings. The Court observed that if the remuneration fixed at 7 per cent works out legs than Rs. 1,200 per month, the Receiver is entitled to receive a remuneration of Rs. 1,200. The Receiver was also held entitled to spend any amount to meet his expenses in due discharge of his duties cut of the assets of the firm.

(2.) Challenging the validity of the said order, defendant 1 has approached this Court.

(3.) It is not in dispute that the remuneration of the Receiver fixed at 7 per cent on the realisation of the assets or income of the firm would work out at Rs.4,000 to Rs.5,000 per month depending upon the collection of fares in each month. It was the contention of Counsel for the petitioner that the said pemuneration was excessive and disproportionate to the work done by the Receiver. It is said that the Receiver has limited function, and is required to supervise the activities of the workmen and has no special responsibility to perform. It is also said that the entire work of the Receiver was formerly performed by the managing partner of the firm who was paid only a sum of Rs.250 per month. Counsel for the petitioner, has however, no objection for paying the Receiver Rs.750 per month. Counsel for the Receiver submitted that this Court may fix any remuneration above Rs. 1,200 and below Rs.2,000 per month. On these extreme contentions, I do not think that I can strike a balance. I may, however, briefly- state the principles which must. enter into the judicial verdict in determining the remuneration of a Receiver in a case like this. In Kerr on Receivers (13th Edn) at page 248, it is staged as follows