9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (7) TMI 237X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been obtained for initiating the proceedings by the petitioner, official liquidator, against the receiver and the proceedings, therefore, are liable to be dismissed on this ground. In Company Petition No. 10 of 1980, this court had made an order that the company, Jaipur Spinning and Weaving Mills Pvt. Ltd. (In Liquidation), be wound up. The said order was made on December 2, 1983, and the official liquidator attached to this court was appointed as official liquidator of the company in liquidation. A vast chunk of land described in schedules 1 and 2 to the annexures to the present application which js owned by the company in liquidation has been leased out to respondent No. 1, Podar Mills Ltd., Bombay, under two registered lease deeds on D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t No. 3607 of 1988, under its order dated March 7, 1988, has appointed a court receiver so far as Podar Mills Ltd. and more so its Jaipur undertakings are concerned. In the reply, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 have taken a plea that the court receiver appointed by the Bombay High Court was a necessary party. The petitioner filed an application in this court on April 10, 1990, in which this court had directed that the receiver may be impleaded as a party to the application. The said application was filed in pursuance of the order of this court dated March 9, 1990. As said earlier, learned counsel for the respondents contends that the aforesaid application should not be allowed. The ground is that leave of the court to sue the court receiver h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t by the State Bank of India against Podar Mills and more so against its Jaipur mill with which we are presently concerned, there was already a winding up order by this court and the official liquidator had been appointed and this fact does not appear to have been brought to the notice of the Bombay High Court. Be that as it may, a court receiver has been appointed by the Bombay High Court so far as the Jaipur mill of Podar Mills Pvt. Ltd. is concerned. As said earlier, the question is as to whether the present application filed in this court by the official liquidator can be continued without the official liquidator obtaining leave of the Bombay High Court which had appointed the court receiver. So far as the application of the petitioner, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urge oneself of "contempt of court." In Mohd. Hanif Abdul Hamid v. Chunilal Ukabhai, AIR 1981 Bom 156, the court said that although there is no statutory provision which requires a party to take leave of the court to sue a receiver, the rule regarding obtaining leave is part of the rules of equity and is based on public policy which requires that when the court had assumed possession of the property in the interest of the litigants, the authority of the court was not to be disturbed without first taking its leave. However, a party can apply for leave retrospectively if it has omitted to obtain such leave prior to the filing of the suit or prior to initiating proceedings in execution. It is, therefore, within the competence of the court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
