JASHREE CHEMICALS LTD Vs. MADHAB SUNDAR GAJAPATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appointment of plaintiff 1 as receiver by the appellate Court reversing decision of the trial Court appointing defendant 1 as receiver is assailed in these two Civil Revisions by defendant 1.

(2.) Both the plaintiffs and defendant 1 made applications in the trial Court for appointment of a receiver. Taking into consideration the fact that (i) in a previous proceeding under the Arbitration Act defendant 1 was appointed as receiver by the trial Court and it was continuing in possession of the disputed property, and (ii) plaintiffs have been restrained in O.S. No. 1 of 1985 of the Court of District Munsiff Palasa in respect of the suit properties, trial Court appointed defendant 1 as receiver. Thus, application for appointment of receiver by the plaintiffs was dismissed and that of defendant 1 was allowed. Plaintiffs preferred two appeals. Appellate Court held that defendant 1 did not render accounts to Court while he was receiver in the arbitration proceeding and it did not pay the amounts due to the plaintiffs as per direction by the Court in the said proceeding under the Arbitration Act. It further held that the findings of the trial Court that defendant 1 was continuing in possession is not correct. Justification for apprehension of the plaintiffs that out of vindictiveness defendant 1 may act in a manner detrimental to the term of the leases with the Union Government to have the effect. On these findings appellate Court appointed plaintiff 1 as receiver.

(3.) At the outset, I must express concern that both the Courts have unnecessarily delved into the principle of appointment of a receiver when both the parties are at one that a receiver to be appointed. The only question which was to be considered was the person to be appointed as receiver. Thus, both the forums have exercised jurisdiction with material irregularity in laying too much importance to the principle of Appointment of a receiver which was academic.