PRAFULLA RANJAN SARKAR Vs. MANINDRA CH NEOGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A senior Advocate, Mr. Manindra Chandra Neogi, for short, Mr. Neogi - usually practicing in Alipore Courts, - appointed as a Receiver by the learned Subordinate Judge, 24-Parganas, in the Estate of Nalini Ranjan Sarkar, deceased, in standing his trial for contempt for wilful disobedience and contumacious disregard of this Court's order, which makes this case important.

(2.) In the glaring context of ugly facts we removed Mr. Neogi on October 6, 1966 from the office of the Receivership, as we had, in the judgment passed by us in Appeal from Original Order No. 227 of 1961 (Since reported in 71 CWN 548) in which the present petitioner, namely, Prafulla Ranjan Sarkar, was the appellant, held inter alia that the charges of gross negligence, unspeakable callousness, thorough incompetence, substantial mismanagement, serious misconduct and proved incapacity were well-founded against him. We appointed a new Receiver and we directed Mr. Neogi to make over charge of the Estate in his possession to the new incumbent immediately, but in no event it should be beyond the 12th of October next, when the Civil Court would be closing for Durga Puja holidays. We recorded in our judgment :

(3.) The applicant, after stating the above facts noted in our judgment passed in the said appeal, further stated, that the new receiver could not meet Mr. Neogi, as he was out of Calcutta from 9th October to 11th October, 1966. He wrote a letter to Mr. Neogi on October 9, intimating that he would take charge of the Estate from Mr. Neogi on October 12 at 8 in the morning, in the presence of the parties, who were also requested to be present at that time. On the 12th of October, at 7 in the morning, Mr. Neogi rang up the new receiver and requested him to take charge at 3 in the afternoon, instead of 8 in the morning, on the ground that he would be going to the Court and it would be inconvenient for him to make over charge in the morning. The new Receiver agreed. At 3 P.M., when the new receiver had been to the residence of Mr. Neogi to take charge, Mr. Neogi asked the new receiver now to show him the "Writ of possession". The copy of the extract of our judgment, delivered to him, was produced before Mr. Neogi, yet he refused to hand over the charge to the new receiver in the absence of the formal writ of possession. It might be stated here that he ignored the following further specific direction in our said judgment :