AMAL KUMAR GHOSH & ORS. versus BASANTA KUMAR ALMAL

Citation: [2010] 5 S.C.R. 357 · Decided: 28-04-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[201 O] 5 S.C.R. 357 
AMAL KUMAR GHOSH & ORS. 
v. 
· BASANTA KUMAR ALMAL 
(Civil Appeal No. 4035 of 2010) 
APRIL 28, 2010 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] 
RECEIVERS: 
A 
B 
Receiver appointed by court - Conduct of - Suit for c 
specific performance - Decreed in terms of settlement arrived 
at between parties - Receiver appointed - Balance sale 
consideration deposited with Receiver, . who was to comply with 
the instructions -
Receiver partly complied with the 
instructions and acted contrary to the other instructions. -
0 
Application seeking a direction to Receiver to render accounts 
and make payments of the amounts due to applicant-
appellants - Dismissed by High Court - HELD: High Court 
has not dealt with the crucial aspect as to whether the Receiver 
discharged his obligations - Paragraph 7 of the 'Terms of 
Settlement', which required the balance amount to be paid to 
E 
applicant-appellants was not complied with - Receiver should 
have either complied with the terms of settlement or should 
have complied with the instructions issued by applicant-
appellants - He did neither - On the other hand, he has 
chosen to release the amount to the first respondent acting 
F 
on the request of his counsel - Neither the consent decree 
nor the appellants' authorization required the amount to be 
paid to the 'purchasers' or the first respondent - There was 
also no order of the court to pay the amount to first respondent 
-ljigh Court has not examined these aspects - The order of G 
High Court is set aside and the matter is remitted to it to 
examine afresh the entire issue as to whether the Receiver 
had discharged his functions properly and complied with the 
357 
H 
358 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 5 S.C.R. 
A directions - High Court will also decide as to who is entitled 
to the amount and pass appropriate orders - High Court shall 
give full opportunity to the second respondent to explain his 
conduct as Receiver, and decide the issue uninfluenced by 
the prima facie findings recorded by this Court in regard to · 
B his conduct in dealing with the funds entrusted to him -
Receivers. 
Receivers appoint.ed by courts -
Monitoring of their 
functions by courts - HELD: When courts appoint Receivers 
C either during pendency of the proceedings or post decree, the 
courts should ensure that the Receivers submit periodical 
reports and that once their assigned task is completed, they 
are discharged - If it is not dorie, it will cause unnecessary 
hardships and may give room for avoidable irregularities -
Each court will have to keep track of Receivers (as also 
D commissioners) appointed by it and ensure that they duly 
perform their functions in time and thereafter discharge them 
- Suit for specific performance. 
Receivers appointed by courts -
Functions and 
E responsibilities of -
Explained -
HELD: Receivers are 
expected to submit periodical accounts/reports to the court with 
copies to parties - If their assigned task is completed, they · 
should seek discharge - They cannot continue as Receivers 
for decades, without doing anything and holding on to the 
F amounts entrusted to them in trust - If a Receiver pays the 
amount belonging to vendor- defendant, to someone else 
without the authority of the court or authorization from the 
vendor-defendant, it will amount to gross negligence or wilful 
default on his part -
Consequently, he may become 
G personally liable - If the part of the sale price which he was 
holding, is lost by payment to a wrong person, he will be 
answerable to the court and the vendor for the· amount - Suit 
for specific performance. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
H 4035 of 2010 
AMAL KUMAR GHOSH & ORS. v. BASANTA KUMAR 359 
ALMAL 
From the Judgment & Order dated 8.12.2008 of the High 
A 
Court at Calcutta in G.A. No. 2498 of 2008. 
Ranjan Mukherjee, Sanjay Kr. Ghosh, Rupali S. Ghosh, 
Avijit Bhattacharjee for the Appellants. 
K.V. Viswanathan, Siddharth Gautam, Goodwill lndeevar, 
Rana Mukherjee, Uttara Babbar for the Respondent. 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
ORDER 
R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J. 1. Leave granted. We have heard 
learned counsel for the appellants, the first respondent and the 
Receiver appointed by the High Court, who was impleaded on 
the direction of this Court as the second respondent. 
B 
c 
D 
2. The first respondent herein filed a suit for specific 
performance against the appellants herein. That suit was 
dismissed by a learn~d single Judge o

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.