Jyoti Prakash Saha v. Pallab Bhattacharjee And 4 ORS

IN
THE
HIGH
COURT
OF
TRIPURA
A
G
A
R
T
A
L
A
CRP
No
.58
of
2014
Shri
Jyoti
Prakash
Saha,


   



      
    

    



     
  
  .......
Petitioner
-
V
e
r
s
u
s
-
1.
Shri
Pallab
Bhattacharjee,

 

        
  
      

!

  "

  

 #$ %&&''( 





 ) 
  2.
M/S
Maa
Sarada
Devi
Industries,



     *  
    +

) $ !

   ,  !

-  ) %&&'./  0    
  


 
 !1  
 $.   



0   2  

*

 


  

  $  

#$) %&&''.  
 

 
 


  3.
Shri
Sunit
Das,


 

 0    2   
 
  +

 
   

$   #$)%&&''.  
 


  
  4.
Shri
Bimalendu
Chakraborty,



 

    2  2 !1 
 

, 

  

)%&&''(  
 

 
  
   5. Shri
Srimanta
Majumder,


 

 ,!

  3  3   24)     
   

 ,  $  01   6



 

)%&&''(




 


  
  .......
Respondents

[2] B
E
F
O
R
E
THE
HON'BLE
MR.
JUSTICE
S.
TALAPATRA
7   :
36 *  3, *   7

 :
32 !1*  3 5 "

 3 $

 3   * 
     :
'.((8'(9

  *1 :22.01.2015
: 

  :

YES NO

√
JUDGMENT
&

ORDER
  66  
 *!1     (8'.8'(8  *  
 $ 3
 ;&  8'(8 
 < 
      (.'.8'(9  *  
$3
=>  (8'8'(. 
  $9? 8'(8 !1  2 *  0    *
 2  $8 
  

6  
!
    
   
  *  *1  
      ,
(''''4) 3 8'(83  8'(. [2] 1 
   
           
 
       *!1

   
!1



  *
    1 

      5
 6

 * 6
 
! 






[3]  

 (8'.8'(856*
 

6

<

 1 !1 
  *       6  
   * !

   
 6 *      *    
6*



 
 

1    

 !1     .''&8'(.  7 $'(  8'(. > )/  
    
 2   


        (8'.8'(8   *   
 6   <   !        
 $/ 
  
!  9?8'(8

   
    6   
   1  ) 

    

         *1

 6
 1

6  1    * 

 2  2 * 0  *
2 $8 
 

!1  (8'.8'(8

  

 @ "I
have
carefully
perused
the
application
and
other
relevant
papers
and
after
going
through
the
record
it
appears
to
this
court
that
appointment
of
receiver
is
urgently
required
to
protect
the
assets
of
that
partnership
firm
till
disposal
of
the
connected
suit.

So,
Mr.
Jyoti
Prakash
Saha,
Ld.
Advocate
of
Tripura
Bar
Association,
Agartala
is
hereby
appointed
as
Receiver
of
M/S
'Maa
Sarada
Devi
Industries'
as
well
as
'M/s
Raima
Bricks
UnitC II',
Noabadi,
Agartala,
in
respect
of
properties
mentioned
in
schedules
'A'
&
'B'
of
the
application
until
further
order
and
the
properties
mentioned
in
schedule
'A'
to
'G'
of
the
application
are
also
hereby
attached
till
pronouncement
of
judgment
or
until
further
order
whichever
is
earlier.





[4] Mr.
Jyoti
Prakash
Saha,
the
appointed
receiver
will
get
a
remuneration
of
Rs.10,000/C
per
month
from
the
fund
of
the
M/S
'Raima
Bricks
UnitCII'
until
further
order.
The
appointed
receiver
is
requested
to
take
necessary
step
in
respect
of
the
properties
of
the
aforesaid
funds
mentioned
in
schedule
'A'
&
'B'
and
to
submit
his
monthly
report
to
this
court
regularly.

Furnish
a
copy
of
this
order
to
Mr.
Jyoti
Prakash
Saha,
appointed
receiver
for
information
and
doing
the
needful.
Office
is
directed
to
issue
notices
upon
the
defendantCO.Ps
asking
them
to
show
cause
by
the
next
date
as
to
why
they
should
not
be
removed
from
the
possession
for
custody
of
the
properties
mentioned
in
the
schedules
of
the
application
and
why
those
properties
should
not
be
committed
to
the
possession,
custody
or
management
of
the
receiver
till
disposal
of
the
connected
suit."



[3]




 6


!1  

!  7 '8  8'(8 
 

 6
 

  !1   (.'.8'(.  

 @
"It
appears
from
the
records
that
the
suit
was
filed
by
plaintiffCrespondent
for
a
declaration
regarding
entitlement
of
compensation
for
an
amount
of
Rs.1,40,90,000/C
along
with
18%
interest
per
annum
w.e.f.
01.10.2010
along
with
other
prayers.
As
plaintiffCrespondent
is
a
partner
of
appellant
No.2,
M/s
Maa
Sarada
Devi
Industries,
a
partnership
firm,
and
defendant
Nos.3
and
4
i.e.
appellant
Nos.3
and
4
herein,
are
partners
of
the
plaintiffCrespondent
and
the
defendant
No.1,
who
is
in
no
way
involved
with
the
appellant
No.2,
had
illegally
trespassed
in
premises
of
plaintiff's
firm,
i.e.
defendant
No.2Cappellant
No.

2
herein
and
taken
the
possession
thereof,
for
which
the
respondentCplaintiff
filed
the
aforesaid
Misc.
Application
with
the
prayer
for
an
order
of
attachment
before
judgment
as
well
as
appointment
of
receiver
and
the
learned
trial
court
by
way
of
passing
the
impugned
order
only
passed
an
interim
order
protecting
the
interest
of
the

plaintiff
so
that
before
disposal
of
the
suit,
the
defendants,
i.e.





[5] herein
cannot
dispose
of
the
property
that
belongs
to
the
defendant
No.2,
i.e.
appellant
No.2,
herein.

As
the
learned
counsel
for
the
parties
agreed
for
disposal
of
the
instant
appeal
only
with
a
simple
direction
to
the
learned
trial
court
for
disposing
the
civil
miscellaneous
case
69/2012
within
a
particular
period
after
hearing
the
parties,
it
would
not
be
proper
on
the
part
of
this
court
to
decide
the
appeal
on
merit.

At
the
same
time
as
the
trial
has
passed
an
order
appointing
one
of
the
learned
counsel
as
the
receiver
it
would
also
not
be
proper
to
disturb
the
said
order
as
a
whole,
more
so,
when
the
defendant
appellants
have
already
filed
their
objection
in
the
Misc.
Case
and
the
Misc.

Case
is
ready
for
disposal
by
the
trial
court.

Accordingly,
learned
Civil
Judge
(Sr.
Div.),
Court
No.2,
Agartala,
West
Tripura
is
directed
to
dispose
of
aforesaid
Civil
Misc.
Application
within
a
period
of
one
month
from
today,
in
accordance
with
law,
after
hearing
the
parties,
and
till
then
the
appellant
shall
not
dispose
of
any
of
the
properties
as
mentioned
in
schedule
A
to
G
of
the
miscellaneous
application
without
the
leave
of
the
trial
court.

The
defendantCappellants
shall
also
not
disturb
the
receiver
from
discharging
his
duties
as
per
the
impugned
order."


[4]
#

 8.'.8'(.

 
 
$3
;&8'(8 
 9? 8'(8     
     @ "I
have
carefully
perused
the
documents
filed
by
the
parties
and
found
that
the
defendantCOP
No.4
Sri
Bimalendu
Chakraborty
being
the
plaintiff
instituted
a
title
suit
No.54
of
2010
against
the
present
plaintiffCpetitioner
and
others
for
rendition
of
accounts
and
dissolution
of
partnership
firm
namely,
M/S
'Maa
Sarada
Devi
Industries'
wherein
the
present
plaintiffC petitioner
is
one
of
the
partners
of
that
partnership
firm.





[6] It
also
appears
from
the
copy
of
deed
of
lease
dated
23.02.2004
submitted
by
the
defendantC Ops
that
the
land
of
the
brick
field
of
M/S
'Maa
Sarada
Devi
Industries'
at
Noabadi
was
owned
by
the
defendantCOps
No.3
&
4
and
they
had
leased
out
the
said
land
to
the
partnership
firm
namely
M/S
'Maa
Sarada
Devi
Industries'
for
a
period
of
five
years
and
after
expiry
of
lease
agreement
in
the
year
2009
the
defendantCOps
No.3
&
4
did
not
enter
into
any
new
lease
agreement
with
the
said
partnership
firm
rather,
on
12.11.10
the
defendantCOps
No.3
&
4
executed
a
deed
of
lease
in
respect
of
the
said
land
in
favour
of
M/s
Raima
Bricks
of
Gandacharra,
District
Dhalai
Tripura,
represented
by
the
defendant
-OP
No.

1
Sri
Pallab
Bhattacharjee
and,
therefore,
plaintiffCpetitioner
has
prima
facie
no
legal
right
to
remove
OP
No.1
from
possession
of
that
leased
out
property.
But
it
is
also
admitted
fact
that
the
partnership
firm
namely
M/S
'Maa
Sarada
Devi
Industries'
has
not
yet
been
dissolved
in
the
eye
of
law
and
almost
all
the
properties
of
that
partnership
firm
are
under
the
possession
of
the
defendant
Ops
No.3
&
4
and
as
such
I
find
no
justification
to
vacate
the
order
dated
12.03.12
passed
by
this
court
by
which
Mr.
Jyoti
Prakash
Saha,
Ld.
Advocate
of
Tripura
Bar
Association
of
Agartala
was
appointed
as
receiver
of
M/S
'Maa
Sarada
Devi
Industries'.

However,
the
said
order
is
hereby
vacated
so
far
as
the
properties
of
M/S
Raima
Bricks
UnitCII,
Noabadi,
Agartala
is
concerned.

However,
the
attachment
order
passed
by
this
court
on
12.03.2012
in
respect
of
Schedule
A
to
G
properties
will
continue
until
disposal
of
the
connected
title
suit
(T.S.
48
of
2012)."

  [5]

    8.'.8'(.

 ! 

!1 
 7'(8'(. !
 2  1     .''&8'(. 
 

 6

6   @ "According
to
this
Court,
the
impugned
order
for
appointment
of
receiver
as
well
as
the
order
of
attachment
issued
by
the
learned
court
below
undoubtedly
lacks
factual
backing
and
legal
support.
Hence,
the
impugned
order
of
appointment
of
receiver
as
well
as
the
order
of
attachment
before
judgment
is
hereby
set
aside.





[7] [6]


         
   * 6
  

1    !1 
    .''&8'(. 7'(8'(.      

   !  2 *  3
A=>B $ (8'  8'(. 

  
     
 (8'.8'(8 *  
$3
;&8'(8 
 9?8'(85

      ,
(''''4)  

 6   >

   
  3  8'(8  3  8'(.  6   
!

 
 
!

 6   1  6 
*         !

 6
!   88'.8'(. !

   
      1


 
 1 
   !!1   (.'.8'(. * 
$3
A=>B(8'8'(. 
 9?8'(8     


6
@ "I
have
carefully
perused
the
orders
passed
in
connected
Misc.
69/2012,
from
where
it
appears
that
the
petitioner
was
appointed
as
Receiver
vide
order
dated
12.03.2012
and
the
OPs
were
asked
to
show
cause
as
to
why
they
should
not
be
removed
from
the
possession
or
custody
of
the
properties
as
to
why
the
properties
should
not
be
committed
to
the
Receiver.
The
properties
were
neither
committed
to
the
Receiver
nor
the
OPs
were
removed
from
the
possession
or
custody
of
the
property
under
dispute.
Subsequently,
on
the
appearance
and
written
objection
of
OPs
in
Misc.
69/2012
my
predecessor
in
Office
had
not
vacated
the
order
of
appointment
of
Receiver
having
objected
by
the
OPs
vide
order
dated
23.03.2013.

The
OPs,
therefore,
approached
the
Hon'ble
High
Court
of
Tripura
by
filing
an
appeal
against
the
order
dated
23.03.2013
vide
FAO





[8] No.01/2013
by
which
Hon'ble
High
Court
of
Tripura
has
set
aside
the
order
of
appointment
as
well
as
the
order
of
attachment
passed
by
this
court.
At
this
stage
we
find
it
appropriate
to
refer
to
the
order
dated
03.09.2013
passed
by
Hon'ble
High
Court
in
FAO
No.01
of
2013.
The
operative
portion
reads
as
under:
'Hence,
impugned
order
of
appointment
of
receiver
as
well
as
the
order
of
attachment
before
judgment
is
hereby
set
aside.'

In
view
of
the
discussion
made
above
it
appears
that
the
petitioner
was
appointed
as
Receiver,
but
the
properties
under
dispute
was
neither
committed
to
possession
of
Receiver
nor
the
OPs
were
removed
from
the
possession
or
custody
of
properties,
moreover,
the
Hon'ble
High
Court
has
set
aside
the
entire
order
of
appointment.
We
are,
therefore,
of
the
considered
opinion
that
the
petitioner
is
not
entitled
to
remuneration
as
claimed."

 [7] 36   
  
 


!1 3 ,      
  

!

     


 

 
 (8'.8'(8 (.'.8'(.

!1 
2  7$'88'(8  8''.8'(.  
   * 
 
  
   
 !1  



  

   
  !1

  
 [8]
7  
 3  2 !1  
   
 


 !1 3 5 "

    
   * 1 

 
         *   

 *5     
!    
  





[9]

    
  1  
  * 
 

     
  

  

   1 
   5 
  
   6         

      [9]
*   *

 

  
  6 

   (.'.8'(9   

 6     
   !1  2 *  *
2 $8 
 

5
  
  1  *




1   
 1     (8'.8'(8  *  
 $3
;&8'(8
   *    @ "Mr.
Jyoti
Prakash
Saha,
Ld.
Advocate
of
Tripura
Bar
Association,
Agartala
is
hereby
appointed
as
Receiver
of
M/S
'Maa
Sarada
Devi
Industries'
as
well
as
'M/s
Raima
Bricks
UnitC II',
Noabadi,
Agartala,
in
respect
of
properties
mentioned
in
schedules
'A'
&
'B'
of
the
application
until
further
order
and
the
properties
mentioned
in
schedule
'A'
to
'G'
of
the
application
are
also
hereby
attached
till
pronouncement
of
judgment
or
until
further
order
whichever
is
earlier.

Mr.

Jyoti
Prakash
Saha,
the
appointed
receiver
will
get
a
remuneration
of
Rs.10,000/C
per
month
from
the
fund
of
the
M/S
'Raima
Bricks
UnitCII'
until
further
order.
The
appointed
receiver
is
requested
to
take
necessary
step
in
respect
of
the
properties
of
the
aforesaid
funds
mentioned
in
schedule
'A'
&
'B'
and
to
submit
his
monthly
report
to
this
court
regularly.





[10] [10]

7 
   (8'.8'(8   
 
 6   1 !  1   !1 
    (8'.8'(8  1    


) :    1   


)  C 6

 

     6 *
  

  
 
        !1   *          6
  
!  1 

 

1 [11]

7     8.'.8'(.  *  
 $3
;&8'(8   
 @ This
appointed
receiver
Sri
J.P.
Saha
submits
a
report
whereby
it
is
informed
to
this
court
that
the
appointed
receiver
has
not
been
allowed
to
discharge
his
duty
as
per
order
of
this
court
by
the
agents
of
the
defendantCOPs
namely
Sri
Sunit
Das
and
Shri
Pallab
Bhattacharjee
and
that
the
defendantCOPs
also
did
not
submit
the
accounts
book,
registers,
documents
and
records
of
firm
to
receiver
for
inspection
and
not
only
that
the
men
and
agents
of
defendantCOPs
have
been
threatening
the
receiver
continuously.

The
appointed
Receiver
also
files
one
separate
petition
claiming
his
outstanding
remuneration
of
Rs.1,30,000/
from
the
defendantCOP
No.1
Sri
Pallab
Bhattacharjee.

[12]

1 
    8.'.8'(.
    
   
  34
 ,    
 D )## $ !

  

 6  
          * 
  

 !  


)  C 6 !1 34 3

    *  #
 






[11] $ !

  

        !1   *   !1      !    56*
  !1 
 1  !1 * [13]



  
   !1     .''&8'(.  *  7 '(  8'(. 
    8.'.8'(. 6
  6  

 5  .''&8'(.  
   (8'.8'(8  8.'.8'(.  * !   *   



     3 8'(83 8'(. 2 * 0   *
2  $8 



 

        13*  !

 !

 (8'.8'(8  *
*       
 !1  
 
(/'.8'(8  *
  
34

    *  #
 
  34
 ,    
 D )## $ !

  

 #  
         

  * 
 *5

  
 6
 
6           *  *  
 
  
  
 #

 
      8.'.8'(.     !      

     

   
     
 56*   *  6





[12]

!1 6    1   
    *    [14]

 

    
  

    



6  !
* !

   

    
  6   <

   
 
 !  

    )     

      
     
      
 
  !1    
   *   
   !*  
  
 


6  >

    


!



JUDGE