Skip to content


Srepat Singh and anr. Vs. Ram Sarap Surya Prasad and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in76Ind.Cas.583
AppellantSrepat Singh and anr.
RespondentRam Sarap Surya Prasad and ors.
Excerpt:
insolvency - receiver--remuneration. - .....submit it monthly and be prepared at the time of submission to produce all connected papers. the rate of remuneration will be liable to he reconsidered as from first october 1920, on examination of the diaries submitted'4. appeal no. 379 is preferred from a later order of 23rd december 1920, which is in part a corollary of the earlier order. the order directs the insolvent's representatives, meaning chatrapat singh's sons, the appellants before us, to deposit in court a sum of rs. 5,850, being the remuneration due to the receiver at the rate of rs. 150 a month up to the 2nd november 1920. the order says nothing about the enumeration of the receiver for any subsequent period.5. as regards the first appeal relating to the rate of the receiver's remuneration, as originally fixed, that is.....
Judgment:

Thomas Richardson, J.

1. These are two appeals from two orders made in the course of insolvency proceedings by the District Judge or Murshidabad in the following circumstances:--The late Chatrapat Singh was adjudicated an insolvent by an order of the Privy Council, dated the 20th November 1916. On the 2nd August, 1917. the District Judge made an order appointing Babu Promatha Nath Chakraburty Receiver of the insolvent's estate Chatrapat died on the 15th April, 1018, and the appellants in these appeals are his sons Srepat Singh and Jagatpat Singh, the respondents being the Receiver whose name I have mentioned and certain creditors of the estate. On the 26th May 1910, the District Judge, on an application by the appellants to be made parties to the proceedings, held that they had no title or interest to come in as parties. That order was subsequently revered on appeal by the High Court by an order dated the 19th May 1920, and since then the names of the appellants have appeared as parties on the record. In view of the course which the argument before us has taken and of the order which we propose to make, it is not necessary on the present occasion to decide whether the right of the appellants to appear was limited to the particular purpose which the learned Judges had in view in making their order.

2. Meanwhile, on the 26th June 1919, the District Judge (Mr. Rau) made an order fixing the remuneration of the Receiver at Rs. 150 a month, and rightly directing that the remuneration should be paid out of the estate of the insolvent.

3. On the 27th August 1920, the appellants by a petition to the District Judge, complained that the Receiver's remuneration was excessive. The matter came before the District Judge on the 18th September, 1920, when he directed the Receiver to submit what he called a concise account of the work which he had already done. This concise account or statement was duly submitted by the Receiver and on the 8th October 1920. the District, Judge (then Mr. J.A. Ross) passed the order from which Appeal No. 378 has been preferred in these terms: 'Examined the account of the work done by the Receiver. Heard objector's criticisms and Pleaders on both sides. I see no reason to interfere with the order of Mr. Rau as regards the remuneration of the Receiver up to the present. He will, however, in future keep a detailed diary of the work done by him and submit it monthly and be prepared at the time of submission to produce all connected papers. The rate of remuneration will be liable to he reconsidered as from first October 1920, on examination of the diaries submitted'

4. Appeal No. 379 is preferred from a later order of 23rd December 1920, which is in part a corollary of the earlier order. The order directs the insolvent's representatives, meaning Chatrapat Singh's sons, the appellants before us, to deposit in Court a sum of Rs. 5,850, being the remuneration due to the Receiver at the rate of Rs. 150 a month up to the 2nd November 1920. The order says nothing about the enumeration of the Receiver for any subsequent period.

5. As regards the first appeal relating to the rate of the Receiver's remuneration, as originally fixed, that is a matter on which two learned District Judges have exercised their discretion, and I have no doubt that in exercising their discretion they considered the whole of the circumstances and in particular the difficulties likely to attend the administration of the estate of such a man as Chatrapat Singh, involved as he had been in so much a complicated litigation. Mr. Ross had before him the Receiver's statement of what he had done. As to the future, Mr. Ross gave suitable directions to the Receiver in regard to the submission of his accounts. He also directed that, in future, the Receiver should keep a detailed diary of his work which he was to submit every month. In these circumstances, we do not think we ought to interfere with the discretion of the Court below in the matter of the Receiver's remuneration for the period up to the second November 1920.

6. No doubt, a Receiver is generally remunerated by the method of percentage or commission but there is no absolute rule that he should be so remunerated. The Court has a discretion, if it thinks fit, to allow him remuneration at a fixed rate.

7. In the present case, I feel the less inclined to interfere, because the amount of the remuneration has, in the result, only been determined for the period up to the 2nd November 1920. As regards the subsequent period, the learned Distrit Judge's reservation, in his order of 8th October will apply, namely, that the rate of remuneration will be liable to be reconsidered. This judgment leaves the District Judge entirely free to settle the principle on which or the rate at which the Receiver should be remunerated in respect of such subsequent period.

8. As regards the order of the 23rd November, so far as it fixes the amount of the Receiver's remuneration at Rs. 5,850, it is merely consequential upon the previous order. So far, however, as it directs that the amount should be paid by the appellants personally, it is conceded by Dr. Mittor who appears for the Receiver that the order cannot be supported; the Receiver's remuneration must come out of the insolvent. That must have been so in any case apart from the express direction to that effect in the order of the 26th June, 1919. by which the remuneration Was originally fixed.

9. The result is that, in my opinion, Appeal No. 378 fails and should be dismissed. Appeals No. 379 succeeds only to the extent to which it is conceded on the Receiver's behalf that is erroneous, namely, so far as it directs that his remuneration should be paid by the appellants personally. The order will be varied to that extent only. The discretion of the District Judge as regards the further remuneration of the Receiver is left untrammelled.

10. No order need be made as to costs.

Sanderson, C.J.

11. I agree.


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