KANIKA DUTTA Vs. SHIRSHENDU DUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The application is by one of the two partners of a firm which has the only business of running a cinema hall in Howrah. The applicant is the petitioner in A.P.No.219 of 2007.

(2.) At the behest of the respondent an order was made on November 17, 2011 permitting the respondent to carry on the business, but the order clearly specified that such business was to be carried on by the respondent "under the Receiver and the Receiver will make every endeavour to facilitate the business, including signing of cheques upon the Receiver's satisfaction that the expenses are necessary." In addition, the respondent was also required to furnish weekly accounts inclusive of box office collections to the receiver on a week-after basis so that the receiver could furnish copies thereof to the petitioner upon the petitioner's written demand.

(3.) The allegation in the present application is that the respondent has carried on the business without reference to the receiver, no accounts have been furnished and the respondent has purported to disburse payments without seeking the receiver's permission in such regard. It is admitted on behalf of the respondent that the receiver's permission for making payments was not obtained. The respondent alleges that despite requests, the receiver did not take any steps in the matter, but the respondent is not in a position to demonstrate that any letters in such regard were addressed to the receiver. It is the further admitted position that no accounts had been furnished for any period after the order dated November 17, 2011. It was only after the present application was made that abstract accounts for the period following the order dated November 17, 2011 were made over to the petitioner.