Skip to content


Balai Lal Sen Vs. Pramatha Nath Sen and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata High Court
Decided On
Case NumberFirst Appeal No. 146 of 1950
Judge
Reported inAIR1959Cal71
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 40, Rule 1
AppellantBalai Lal Sen
RespondentPramatha Nath Sen and ors.
Appellant AdvocateDurgesh Prosad Das, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateBankim Ch. Dutt and ;Sudhindra Kumar Kar, Advs. for ;Sisir Kumar Basu, Adv. and ;Priya Ghose, Adv. for ;Manindra Kumar Sen, Adv. and ;Samarendra Nath Dutt, Adv. for ;Bibhuti Bhusan, Adv.
DispositionApplication rejected
Cases ReferredBotibol v. Botibol
Excerpt:
- order1. this application is for permission to sue balai lal sen, kanai lal sen, sisir kumar basu and bibhuti bhusan sen on the basis that they were receivers appointed by this court of the firm sen brothers and company. it has to be noticed that balai lal sen, kanai lal sen and sirir kumar basu are no longer receivers and have been discharged. it was held in dinshaw v. amrit lal and co., ilr 10 pat 379 : (air 1931 fat 298) (a) that no leave was necessary to sue a discharged receiver. this was stated to be the correct law in sir john wood-toffe's 'law relating to receivers.' the same view appears to have been taken in england in a case reported in botibol v. botibol, (1947) 1947-1 all e. r. 26 (b). the principle appears to be that when a receiver has already been discharged, there is no.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. This application is for permission to sue Balai Lal Sen, Kanai Lal Sen, Sisir Kumar Basu and Bibhuti Bhusan Sen on the basis that they were receivers appointed by this Court of the firm Sen Brothers and Company. It has to be noticed that Balai Lal Sen, Kanai Lal Sen and Sirir Kumar Basu are no longer receivers and have been discharged. It was held in Dinshaw v. Amrit Lal and Co., ILR 10 Pat 379 : (AIR 1931 Fat 298) (A) that no leave was necessary to sue a discharged receiver. This was stated to be the correct law in Sir John Wood-toffe's 'Law relating to Receivers.' The same view appears to have been taken in England in a case reported in Botibol v. Botibol, (1947) 1947-1 All E. R. 26 (B). The principle appears to be that when a receiver has already been discharged, there is no question of any interference with the Court's management of the property through the receiver, and no leave is necessary to bring a suit against a receiver after discharge. In our judgment, that is the correct position in law. Accordingly, we reject the application in so far as it is for leave to sue Balai Lal Sen, Kanai Lal Sen and Sisir Kumar Basu.

2. As regards Bibhuti Bhusan Sen, the position is somewhat different as he is the present receiver. It has to be remembered that he was appointed receiver in August, 1957 and the only allegation made against him in the body of the petition is that when the petitioner approached him in September, 1957 for accounts and for a settlement of dues, he failed to submit the statement of accounts. I do not think it will be proper to give leave to sue him for failure to submit accounts within a month of his appointment. It is to be noticed that leave is not being asked for on the basis that the petitioner is entitled to obtain damages from the firm Sen Brothers and Company and that is in the hands of the receiver.

3. The application is accordingly rejected with costs to the appearing opposite parties Sisir Kumar Basu and Bibhuti Bhusan Sen. The hearing fee is assessed at two gold mohurs each.

4. Manindra Kumar Sen also appeared before us but no relief was sought against him. In these circumstances, we do not think it necessary to allow any costs to him.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //