J K SYNTHETICS LIMITED Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this Appeal, the Appellant first Defendant has taken an exception to the judgment and order dated 13th December, 2004 passed in Chamber Summons No. 1211 of 2003 in Suit No. 4411 of 1997. The issue involved in this Appeal is regarding entitlement of the appellant to reduction in the amount of fees/ commission charged by the Court Receiver as per the rates prescribed by Rule 591 of The Rules and Forms of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay on the Original side in its several Jurisdiction Rules, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as "o. S. Rules" ).

(2.) FOR the purposes of appreciating the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it will be necessary to refer to the facts of the case in brief.

(3.) THE second Respondent filed a suit against the appellant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 101. 29 Crores and other reliefs which are more particularly set out in the plaint. By order dated 7th January, 1998, the court Receiver, High Court was appointed as Receiver of the properties of the Appellant described in Exhibit "a-1" to "a-5" to the plaint. Court Receiver was also appointed in respect of the properties at Exhibit "b-1" to "b-7" and Exhibit "c" to the plaint. This Court directed that the Appellant shall be appointed as the agent of the Court Receiver of all the suit properties without insisting upon any security. On the basis of the said order, the Appellant opted to act as an Agent of the Court Receiver only in respect of two running units of Cement Plants of the Appellant situate at gotan and Nimbahera in the State of Rajasthan. In respect of rest of the properties, the Appellant did not accept the agency. The Court Receiver after hearing the plaintiffs and the appellants fixed the adhoc Royalty @ Rs. 25. 00 Lacs per month for each of the aforesaid Unit w. e. f. 7th January, 1998. A Chamber summons was taken out by the Appellant for reduction of the adhoc Royalty fixed by the Court Receiver. The said Chamber Summons was dismissed by this Court. Initially there was some default on the part of the appellant in payment of monthly royalty. Later on the appellant started regularly paying monthly royalty amount of Rs. 50. 00 Lacs. It appears that the suit filed by the second Respondent was transferred to the debt Recovery Tribunal, Mumbai. The parties moved the said Tribunal for appointment of the DRT Receiver in place of Court Receiver. By order dated 20th December, 2002 passed by the DRT, Mumbai, the Court Receiver, high Court was discharged and a DRT Receiver was appointed. Till the end of December, 2002, the appellant had deposited the total sum of rs. 29,73,99,998/- with the Court Receiver by way of royalty. The Court Receiver made payment of rs. 2,79,84,771/- to the plaintiff towards reimbursement of security charges and Insurance premium. The royalty amount received from the Appellant was deposited in fixed deposits by the Court Receiver under different deposits of Rs. 10. 00 Lacs. each. The royalty amount was invested by the Court Receiver under 272 different fixed deposit receipts. In terms of the Rule 591 of the O. S. Rules, the Court Receiver charged commission at the rate of 6% on the royalty amount collected from the Appellant. The total commission at the rate of 6% works out to be Rs. 1,78,44,000/- which has been already credited by the Court Receiver to the Government account. As per the said Rule 591, the Court Receiver charged commission at the rate of 5% on the interest received on the fixed deposits. The said commission of rs. 9,94,739/- has been already credited by the Court receiver in the Government account.