9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (12) TMI 390X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... present case briefly enumerated are as under. 3. A suit was filed on 20-11-1997 for recovery of aggregate amount of Rs. 1,01,29,33,563 and for various other reliefs. An interim application being Notice of Motion No. 3 of 1997 was moved. On 7-1-1998 this Court appointed Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay as Receiver in respect of the properties of the 1st respondent described in Exhibits A-1 to A-5 of the plaint. The Receiver was also appointed in respect of the goods, movables and bankers goods described in Exhibits B-1 to B-7 with all powers under Order XL Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1908. Under the said order it was ordered that the defendant No. 1 should be appointed as agent of the Court Receiver in respect of the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red was Rs. 29.5 crores. On enquiry being made, the defendant No. 1 was informed that Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay has charged a sum of Rs. 1,69,03,000 as and by way of his fees under rule 591 of the High Court Rules by computing the amount at the rate of 6% on the royalty and licence fee and 5% on the interest earned on investment which the Court Receiver effected. The said sum of Rs. 1,69,03,000 has been debited for the years 1999 to 2002 as commission. 5. It is this amount of deduction by the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay which has been challenged by the defendant No. 1 by taking out the present application and the defendant No. 1 seeks an order under rule 591 that the amount so fixed by the Court Receiver must be reduced. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er rule 592 the Court Receiver is also entitled to charge certain amounts towards the management and office expenses including his salary. Secondly, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the defendant No. 1 that the entitlement of the Receiver to charge fees and/or commission has to be commensurate with the efforts put by him, work undertaken by him and the expenses incurred by him. The learned counsel for the defendant No. 1 has taken me through the report of the Court Receiver which has been filed pursuant to the earlier order passed by Vajifdar, J. to show that the work put by the Court Receiver and the expenditure incurred by the Court Receiver is not in commensurate with the deductions made by him and, therefore, the amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Court Receiver was appointed and he was in possession and, therefore, also he contended that the amount claimed by him is disproportionate and should be reduced accordingly. 9. The learned counsel for the State Government has filed an affidavit dated 12-12-2004. In effect the affidavit does not disclose any details or any contentions save and except passing of the resolution dated 29-11-2004 cancelling its previous resolution reducing the amount deductible pursuant to the orders passed by this Court. It has been averred in the affidavit that the said orders having been set aside the aforesaid resolution is also being cancelled. 10. I have considered the rival submissions between the parties. There are two factors which are require ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or fees and commission is to be regulated by the Court. It is undoubtedly true that even under rule 591 ultimate control is vested with the Court and under the Rules a discretion is conferred on the Chamber Judge to reduce the amount chargeable by the Court Receiver. However, the issue which is to be determined is whether the case has been made out by the defendant No. 1 for reduction of charges and/or deviation from the fees prescribed under rule 591 of the Original Side Rules. 11. The learned counsel for the defendant No. 1 has vehemently contended that the services put in by the Court Receiver is a meagre service and is not in commensurate with the amount deducted by him. I posed a question to the learned counsel for the defendant No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urther opinion that such abnormal and extraordinary circumstances must be such which also makes out a special case for departing from such a normal yard stick. The contention of the learned counsel for defendant No. 1 in the present case is that there are such abnormal and/or extraordinary circumstances and, therefore, reduc-tion should be made. I do not find any such abnormal or extraordi-nary circumstances for exercising power and jurisdiction under rule 591. In my opinion, such rule can be exercised where the amount received is much less than the claim in the suit itself or where a party to the suit is financially very weaker strata of the society, or widow or minor children. In the present case, no such circumstances exist. In my view, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
