RADHAKRISHNA FILMS (P.) LTD., BY CHAIRMAN S. KUMARASWAMY REDDIAR Vs. NEWTOWNE STUDIOS (P.) LTD., DIRECTOR, JITTAN BANERJEE AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 27th October, 1960, a decree for a sum of Rs. 2,48,623 was passed in favour of the plaintiff in C.S. No. 38 of 1958 and certain charges with reference to the said amount were created in respect of materials in the Newtons Studios. Subsequently, E.P. No. 85 of 1961 was filed in execution of that decree and on 5th May, 1961, an order was passed by this Court, on consent of the parties. Under the terms of the consent order, the 1st defendant Company's Managing Director, Dinshaw K. Teherani was appointed Receiver with liberty to draw a sum of Rs. 1,000 per mensum as Receiver's remuneration and the said Receiver was directed to pay the plaintiff -decree -holder on or before 15th day of every month a minimum amount of Rs. 6,500 or net collections whichever was more, towards the satisfaction of the decree dated 27th October, 1960. Certain defaults having been committed by the Receiver, Application No. 895 of 1963 was filed by the 1st defendant before this Court, and in that application also an order based on the consent of the parties was passed on 18th June, 1963, and the Receiver was permitted to lease out Messrs. Newtone Studios (P.) Ltd., to Messrs. Venkateswara Cinetone, Madras, on a monthly rent of Rs. 4,000. The said rent of Rs. 4,000 was directed to be apportioned as follows : Rs. 3,000 to the plaintiff -decree -holder and a sum of Rs. 600 to Messrs. Photophone Equipment Ltd., Bombay, towards the amount due to them under a decree, and Rs. 400 to the 3rd respondent in that application, namely, L. Nataraja Chettiar and his wife K. P. Mangayarkarasi towards the amount due to them under the decrees in O.S. No. 53 of 1968, Sub -Court, Devakottai, and O.S. No. 3 of 1960, Sub -Court, Devakottai, respectively, the said amount of Rs. 400 being apportioned as Rs. 200 towards each of the said decrees. Thereafter the Receiver is said to have been adjudged an insolvent in December, 1964. Application No. 204 of of 1966 was preferred by ore K. Balasundaram for a direction to the Receiver to make the monthly deposits from and out of the rental income of the Newtone Studios in discharge of the amount, namely, Rs. 50,000 due to the applicant and 17 others, ex -employees of the 1st defendant in the above suit, under the terms of the common order dated 31st March, 1962, made by the Labour Court, Madras, in C. P. Nos. 62 to 71 and 73 to 80 of 1962 on its file. This application was disposed of by Kunhamed Kutti, J., on 28th July, 1966, with the following order:

(2.) THEREAFTER , Application Nos. 1618, 1619, 1896 and 2278 of 1967 were filed on the file of this Court by the Receiver, in one of which the Receiver claimed his remuneration. All these applications were disposed of by Ramamurti, J., on 18th October, 1967. The learned Judge stated that after the entire facts commencing from May, 1960 and ending with the order of Kunhamed Kutti, J., dated 28th July, 1966, made in Application No. 204 of 1966 that the applicant could not function as Receiver after his adjudication as an insolvent were discussed, the learned Counsel Sri Padmanabhan appearing for the Receiver realised the position and stated on behalf of his client that no useful purpose would be served by prosecuting these applications. The learned Judge proceeded to state that it was clear that after the lease deed executed in favour of Venkateswara Cinetone on 1st June, 1963, the applicant was no longer a Receiver and all that remained was merely a formal order to be passed discharging him, but that had not been done. Subsequently, Application No. 1790 of 1968 was filed by the Receiver for discharging him and by an order dated 18th September, 1968, I discharged the Receiver from his office of Receiver, subject to the accounts being passed. It is against this background the present application has to be considered.

(3.) MR . Padmanabhan, learned Counsel for the applicant, confined himself to the sole and single basis that the applicant having been appointed as a Receiver by an order of this Court, with regard to anything he might have done, the respondent herein could not have taken proceedings before the criminal Court without obtaining the leave of this Court and the failure to obtain such leave and the prosecution of the applicant before the Magistrate constituted contempt of orders of this Court and only on the basis of this contention, the present application for the issue of an injunction has been filed. Therefore, the important question that arises for consideration is whether the respondent herein was under an obligation to obtain the leave of this Court before preferring the complaint and in not obtaining the leave of this Court before preferring the complaint has he committed contempt of this Court so as to authorise and warrant the issue of the injunction applied for?