(1.) The question in this case is whether the Official Assignee is entitled as against the firm of Ramratan Bagree to retain by way of commission to him under the Insolvency Rules of this Court a sum which appears to amount to some 62 Rupees.
(2.) The insolvent, one Dwijendra Nath Sen, was adjudicated on the 9 of June 1925. Prior to the insolvency, namely, on the 15 of February 1924, and the 14 of January 1925 he had executed certain deeds of hypothecation over his stock-in-trade, book-debts and certain other assets, in favour of a firm which I shall refer to as Mathura Das. He had also on the 25 of march 1925 executed a deed of hypothecation over the same assets in favour of the present respondents-the firm of Ramratan Das Bagree. It appears that the Official Assignee took possession of the assets at a time when he had no notice of the respondent's claim to a security there over but that immediately thereafter the respondent firm objected to the Official Assignee proceeding to sell the stock-in-trade and other assets comprised in the alleged security. The Official Assignee had become responsible for rent of the premises in which these goods were and he was not at the moment in a position to deal finally with the claim of either of the two firms whom I have named to be secured creditors. He obtained consent of the firm of Mathura Das to his proceeding with the sale but the respondent firm stoutly objected and maintained that they would take steps to prevent the Official Assignee from selling these assets at his own hand.
(3.) In fact, the respondent firm on the 16 of June, very shortly after the adjudication, commenced a suit on the Original Side for enforcement of their security. They originally brought the suit against the insolvent, but on the 22nd of June the Official Assignee was added as a party; and apparently at or about that time the Official Assignee made an arrangement with the respondent firm. The arrangement was in substance this that it was in the interest of all the parties that the goods should be sold at once and that the respondent firm would waive their objection to the Official Assignee proceeding with his sale provided that the sale proceeds would be retained by the Official Assignee pending the decision of the questions of lien and priority which were arising from the claims of these two firms to be secured creditors. The sale was held on the 23 of June and it appears that the result of it was that the gross proceeds were Rs. 3,702 and that a sum of Rs. 256 and another of Rs. 34 were costs and charges of the actual sale, and the question with reference to the Official Assignee's commission is a question in all of Rs. 185-1-11 pies. So far as the firm of Mathura Das is concerned, no objection is raised to the Official Assignee retaining two-thirds of that sum which otherwise would come to that firm. The real question in dispute is as regards one-third of that sum, i.e., a sum of some 62 Rupees.