UCO BANK Vs. VIRGO STEELS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Chamber Summons has been taken out for modification of the order of the Court Receiver, Whereby the Court Receiver has fixed the ad-hoc royalty of the residential bungalow at New Panvel at Rs.5,000/- per month. The Court Receiver has also directed that the aforesaid royalty shall be payable with effect from the order of this Court appointing the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay, as the Receiver, dated 27th June, 1996.

(2.) IT is submitted by the counsel for the defendants that the direction given by the Court Receiver for payment of royalty with effect from 27th June, 1996 is not maintainable. He submits that the order appointing the Receiver was passed on 27th June, 1996. By that order, the Court Receiver was appointed not only of the mortgaged properties, but also of the amounts which were due to the defendants No.1 to 3 by Tamilnadu Water Supply and Drainage Board. By this order, the amounts due to the defendants No.1 to 3 on or after 9th September, 1991, were ordered to be paid over to the Court Receiver. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the defendants filed Appeal No.1039 of 1996, which was decided on 9th October, 1996. Considering the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, it was ordered that the Receiver would recover the amount due and payable to the defendants by Tamilnadu Water Supply and Drainage Board from the date of the impugned order i.e. 27th June, 1996. Against the aforesaid order, the defendants carried the matter in appeal to the Supreme Court. The aforesaid appeal was dismissed on 17th March, 1997. Thereafter the Receiver took formal possession of the premises on 6th January, 1998.

(3.) I have heard the counsel for the parties at length. I do not find any substance at all in the submissions made by the counsel for the defendants that merely because the possession has been taken on 6th January, 1998, the royalty also becomes payable only from 6th January, 1998. It is to be noticed that a similar plea was put forward by the defendants with regard to their dues from Tamilnadu Water Supply and Drainage Board before the Division Bench. After hearing the parties, the Division Bench was of the view that the Receiver ought to be appointed of the dues atleast from the date when the order was passed by the learned Single Judge. It was keeping these observations in view and treating the securities on parity, that the Receiver has rightly insisted on payment of royalty with effect from the order passed by the learned Single Judge i.e. 27th June, 1996.