http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: JETHABHAI KHATAU & CO.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: LUXMI NARAYAN COTTON MILLS LTD. & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT10/04/1981

BENCH: DESAI, D.A. BENCH: DESAI, D.A. GUPTA, A.C.

CITATION:  1981 AIR 1201            1981 SCR  (3) 449  1981 SCC  (3)  61        1981 SCALE  (1)800

ACT:      Constitution of  India 1950, Art, 136-Interim orders by the High Court-Interference by Supreme Court-When arises.

HEADNOTE:      The appellant  filed a  suit for  recovery  of  certain amounts due  from the  first respondent company. By the time the suit  came up  for hearing  the first respondent company was superseded  and an Administrator was appointed. The suit was compromised and a consent decree was passed, the company being held  liable and  directed to make payment of Rs. 2.85 lakhs with  interest at  6% from the date of the decree. The first respondent  company received  a sum  of about  Rs.  15 lakhs from  the Custodian  of Enemy Property as compensation in respect  of certain  Cotton mills  owned by it. The third respondent was  appointed a  receiver  in  respect  of  this amount and  he deposited  a  sum  of  Rs.  8  lakhs  of  the compensation amount  into a  fixed deposit  account  with  a Bank. The  decretal amount having become due and payable the appellant by  an order  dated April  12,  1978  obtained  an interim attachment of the money in the fixed deposit account of the  bank, which  was confirmed  by order dated April 24, 1978 on  May 4,  1978 upon  a petition by the appellant, the Court directed  the receiver,  3rd  respondent  to  pay  the decretal amount  to the  appellant out  of the amount in the fixed deposit  account of the judgment-debtor with the Bank. As this order was not implemented, the appellant again moved the Court  and by its order dated the May 24. 1978 the Court directed the receiver to pay the amount to the decree holder and the Bank, the keeper of the fixed deposit account of the receiver was  also put  under an obligation not to raise any objection on  the receiver  withdrawing the money and paying the same  to the  decree holder.  These directions not being obeyed, the  appellant moved the Court for holding the third respondent  receiver  and  the  fourth  respondent  Bank  in contempt and  for passing  appropriate orders  for punishing them for contempt. Respondents 5 and 6 were in the meanwhile appointed as joint receivers. A solemn undertaking was given by the  Bank to  the Court that the decretal amount would be paid. In  view of the undertaking the Court did not pass any orders on  the contempt  application. On  March 7,  1980 the Court declined  to grant  the prayer  for discharge  of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

receiver 3rd  respondent and directed that the balance after payment of  the decretal amount in the fixed deposit account will be  held by  the receiver.  The Court  however  at  the instance of  the joint  receivers-Respondents 5 and 6 stayed the order for a fortnight. 450      Three appeals  were filed against the order dated March 7, 1980.  Two appeals  were preferred  by the Ist respondent company and  one appeal  was preferred  by  2nd  respondent, State of  West Bengal.  In the  appeals preferred by the Ist respondent company  the High  Court by its order dated March 27, 1980 granted ad interim stay in the matter, by directing that the  Bank would  not disburse  any amount in respect of the fixed  deposit account  and  by  issuing  an  injunction restraining the appellant from obtaining any payment.      Allowing the appeals to this Court, ^      HELD: The order made by the Division Bench on March 27, 1983 and  continued on  September 9, 1980 are set aside. The order dated  May 4,  1978 and  May  24,  1979  as  also  the undertaking given  by the Manager of the 4th respondent Bank through its  Counsel on  June 7,  1979 would  be revived and would be  effective and will have to be implemented. The 4th Respondent  Bank   will  pay  the  decretal  amount  to  the appellant, the  appellant shall pass a receipt acknowledging receipt and  the liability  of the 4th Respondent company to the  3rd   Respondent   receiver   shall   thereupon   stand discharged. Before  the amount  is paid, the appellant shall give security to the satisfaction of the High Court and also an undertaking on affidavit that in the event of the appeals being allowed,  the appellant  shall deposit the said amount with the  High Court  within one  month from the date of the order of the appellate Bench. [459 C-F]      2.  This  Court  ordinarily  does  not  interfere  with interim  orders   unless  and   until   manifest   injustice convulsively shakes it. [455 E]      In the  instant case  the interim  order  made  by  the Division Bench  on  September  9,  1980  confirming  the  ad interim order  dated March 7, 1980 has to be interfered to a limited extent  to avoid  the impression  that  the  Court’s process can be lightly trifled with. [458 H]      3.  Failure   to  comply  with  the  Court’s  mandatory directions  led   the  appellant  to  file  a  petition  for contempt.  The   alleged  contemners   impleaded  were   Ist respondent company  and the  4th  respondent  Bank.  At  the hearing, counsel  for the 4th respondent unreservedly agreed to comply  with the  order of  the Court. It was because the Bank unreservedly  and unconditionally  agreed and undertook to pay  up the  amount that  the motion for taking action in contempt was discharged by the Court. [457 E, H]      4. The  order dated June 7,1979 is not a fresh order on merits. It  was merely  an implementation of the order dated May 24, 1979 which appears to have become final and binding. [158 A]      5. The  three appeals  were preferred against the order dated March  7, 1980.  That order had nothing to do with the order dated May 24, 1979 or the order dated June 7, 1979. At any rate,  the order  dated May  24, 1979  appears  to  have become final. [458 D]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeal Nos. 1256- 1258 of 1981.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

451      Appeals by  Special Leave  from the  Judgment and Order dated 9.9.1980 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal Nos. 94, 122 & 95 of 1980 respectively.      S.N. Kacker and H.R. Puri for the Appellant.      Shankar Ghosh,  B.P. Maheshwari  and Miss Asha Jain for Respondent No. 1.      Dalip Sinha,  G.S. Chatterjee  and P.K.  Chatterjee for Respondent No. 2.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      DESAI, J.  M/s Jethabhai  Khatu &  Co.,  a  partnership firm, is  the  appellant  in  all  the  three  appeals.  The respondents in  all the three appeals are: (1) Luxmi Narayan Cotton Mills  Ltd., an  incorporated Company  (’company’ for short), (2)  State of  West Bengal,  (3) S.K. Dutta, who was for some  time a  receiver appointed  by the High Court; (4) Grindlays Bank,  (’Bank’ for  short), having a fixed deposit account in  the name  of Receiver.  S.K. Dutta  on behalf of Luxmi Narayan  Cotton Mills  Ltd., (5)  A.K. Dutta,  and (6) R.C.  Deb,  who  claim  to  have  been  appointed  as  joint receivers after removal of Sh. S.K. Dutta.      Appellant filed suit No. 1194/66 against the company on the original  side of  the Calcutta  High Court to recover a certain amount due under two separate heads. By the time the suit came  up for  hearing the board of Directors of the 1st respondent company was superseded and one Gurudas Sharma was appointed as  an Administrator.  The Administrator on behalf of the 1st respondent company entered into a compromise with the appellant  in respect  of  the  claim  in  suit  of  the appellant and  after obtaining  leave of the Court to settle the matter,  invited a  consent decree  by which the company was held  liable and  directed  to  pay  Rs.  2,85,000  with interest thereon  at 6%  per annum from January 6, 1970, the date of  the decree,  till realisation.  The Ist  respondent company was  given an  option to  pay the decretal amount by monthly instalments  of  Rs.  5,000,  the  first  instalment becoming due  and  payable  on  March  15,  1970,  and  each subsequent instalment  to be  paid by  15th day  of the next succeeding month.  The default  clause in the consent decree provided that if the company committed default in payment of any two  instalments  within  the  time  stipulated  in  the decree, the whole of the decretal amount and the interest on the balance of the decretal 452 amount will  become due and payable at once. It appears that the Ist  respondent company  received Rs. 15,00,000 from the Custodian of  Enemy Property  in respect of its cotton Mills situated in Narayanganj, Bangladesh. The 3rd respondent S.K. Dutta appears  to have  been appointed a receiver in respect of this compensation amount and he appears to have deposited Rs. 8,40,000 out of the compensation amount in fixed deposit account evidenced  by receipt  No.1002-2539 with the Bank at its Netaji  Subhash Road Branch, Calcutta. The appellant, by an order  dated April  5, 1978,  of the Calcutta High Court, obtained leave  to execute the decree by attachment of funds lying in the hands of the 3rd respondent receiver S.K. Dutta (Annexure ’D’).  By the date of the order Rs. 4,20,702.94 p. had become  due and  payable under  the decree.  Pursuant to this order  an interim  attachment was levied under order 21 Rule 52  C.P.C. On  the amount covered by the aforementioned fixed deposit  receipt, and  accordingly the  Master of  the Court, Shri  S.K. Ghosh informed the 3rd respondent receiver by the  writ of  the Court  dated April  12, 1978,  that the receiver shall  hold  the  money  under  the  fixed  deposit account subject  to such order as may be made respecting the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

same in  the suit  in which he had been appointed a receiver and subject  to further  orders of the Court (Annexure ’E’). The Master  confirmed the  interim attachment  by his  order dated April  24, 1978  (Annexure ’F’). On May 4, 1978 upon a petition by  the appellant  the Court  directed the receiver 3rd respondent  to pay  the sum  of Rs.  4,20,702.94 to  the appellant decree-holder  out of  the  amount  in  the  fixed deposit account  of the  judgment-debtor with  the  Bank  in fixed deposit  receipt No. 1002-2539 standing in the name of the receiver  which was  attached in  terms of  order  dated April 12,  1978, as  confirmed by  the order dated April 24, 1978. Presumably neither the 3rd respondent receiver nor the Bank effectively  implemented the  order dated  May 4, 1978, whereupon the  appellant moved the Court during the vacation on May  24, 1979, for an appropriate direction and a learned single Judge  of the Calcutta High Court working as vacation judge gave the directions prayed for. As this order has some legal consequences  in this matter, it would be advantageous to extract it. It reads as under:           "There will  be an order in terms of prayers (a) &      (b) of the petition.           Prayer (a):  That the  receiver Sudhir Kumar Dutta      be forthwith  directed to  instruct and intimate to the      Grindlays  Bank   Ltd.,  Netaji  Subhash  Road  Branch,      Calcutta, to pay 453      a sum  of Rs.  4,29,702.94 p. to the petitioner decree-      holder in  terms of  the payment  order dated  4th May,      1978 out  of the  amount of  the Fixed  Deposit of  the      judgment-debtor with  Grindlays  Bank  Ltd.,  in  Fixed      Deposit Receipt  No. 1002-2539  which  has  been  Lying      attached in  terms of  the order dated 12th April, 1978      and is  confirmed by  the order  dated 24th April, 1978      and the  said Grindlays Bank Ltd., Netaji Subhash Road,      Branch, Calcutta,  be directed  to pay  the said sum of      Rs. 4,20,702.94 p. to the petitioner decree holder;           Prayer  (b):  That  Grindlays  Bank  Ltd.,  Netaji      Subhash Road  Branch, Calcutta,  be directed to pay the      said sum  of  Rs.  4,20,702.94  p.  to  the  petitioner      decree-holder in  terms of  the payment order dated 4th      May, 1978,  out of  the said  fixed deposit receipt No.      1002-2539." Effectively this order of the Court directed the receiver to pay the  amount therein  mentioned to  the decree-holder and the Bank,  the keeper  of the  fixed deposit  account of the receiver was  also put  under an obligation not to raise any objection on  receiver withdrawing  the money and paying the same  to   the  decree-holder.   In  fact   upon  its   true construction, the  Bank was also under an obligation to take effective steps  to pay the amount mentioned in the order to the decree-holder. It appears that these directions were not obeyed. Consequently,  the appellant  moved  the  Court  for holding the  3rd respondent  receiver S.K. Dutta and the 4th respondent Bank  in contempt  and  for  passing  appropriate order for  punishing them  for contempt  unless they  purged themselves of the contempt.      On June  7, 1979,  when the  petition for taking action against the  alleged contemners  came up  before the  Court, respondents 5  and 6  appear to have been appointed as joint receivers.  The   Bank  appeared  through  its  counsel  Mr. Majumdar and  the joint  receivers appeared forth themselves as  well  as  for  their  respective  clients,  namely,  1st respondent company  and the  2nd respondent  State  of  West Bengal.  Mr.   Majumder,  learned   advocate  for  the  Bank undertook to  the Court  to comply  with the order dated May

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

24, 1979, to pay the amount therein mentioned to M/s Maharia &  Co.  Advocate-on-record  for  the  appellant.  The  court directed that  on such  payment being made the Bank shall be absolved from  all the  liability in  respect  of  the  said amount. The  Court specifically  noted that  in view  of the undertaking given by the learned advocate on behalf of the 454 Manager of  the Bank, the Court was not inclined to pass any order  in  respect  of  the  contempt  application  and  the application for  taking action  in contempt  was accordingly disposed of. At this stage. Mr. A.K. Dutta appearing for the Ist respondent  company prayed  for stay of a portion of the order of  the Court  which prayer  was specifically  refused observing that  as no  fresh orders have been passed on that day affecting the interests of the said Company, no question of granting stay of a portion of the order arises. The Court specifically directed  that all the parties and particularly the Manager of the Bank should act on the signed copy of the minutes. It appears that the solemn undertaking given by the Bank was  not acted  upon.  Probably  soon  thereafter  some interim orders  were obtained  as would  transpire from  the order of  Mrs. Padma  Khastgir, J. dated March 7, 1980. When the matter came up on March 7, 1980, the court observed that there will  by no  order on  the applications before it save and except  that the  receiver will  hold the balance sum of Rs. 4,19,697.06p  till further order of the Court. The Court also declined  to grant prayer for discharge of the receiver S.K. Dutta,  the  3rd  respondent,  because  notice  of  the application was not served upon him. This observation would, however,  establish   that  till  March  7,  1980,  the  3rd respondent was  not discharged as a receiver though from the recitals in the order dated June 7, 1979, it appears that by that date  A.K. Dutta and R.C. Deb were functioning as joint receivers. In  this order  it was distinctly made clear that except what  is stated  the specifically  in the  order  all interim orders  were vacated.  However,  the  Court  at  the instance of  joint receivers stayed the portion of the order dated March 7, 1980, for a period of a fortnight. To clarify the position  it  may  be  mentioned  that  when  the  Court directed that balance of Rs. 4,19,697.06 will be held by the receiver it  would imply  that would  be the  balance  after payment of  the amount directed to be paid to the appellant. Specifically this  order has  the effect  of confirming  the earlier order dated May 24, 1970, to pay the decretal amount to the appellant.      If appears  that thereafter  three appeals  came to  be filed before  the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court. Appeal No.  95/80 and Appeal No. 94/80 were preferred by the Ist respondent  company. Appeal  No. 122/80 was preferred by the 2nd respondent State of West Bengal. These three appeals were preferred  against the  order dated March 7, 1980, made by Mrs. Padma Khastgir, J.      In the  two appeals  preferred by  the  Ist  respondent company a  Division Bench  of the Calcutta High Court by its order dated 455 March 27, 1980, granted ad interim stay as under:           "The Joint  Receivers, R.C. Deb and A.K. Dutta are      directed not  to part  with any  money lying  deposited      under the  fixed deposit  receipt No.  1002/2529 in the      Grindlays Bank.           There will  be an  order directing  the  Grindlays      Bank Ltd.,  of 29,  Netaji Subhash Road not to disburse      any amount  in respect  of fixed  deposit No. 1002-2539      standing in  the name  of S.K. Dutta, the fixed deposit

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

    receipt whereof  is Lying  deposited with  the  present      joint receivers R.C. Deb and A.K.Dutta ....           Order of  injunction restraining  Jethabhai Khatau      and Co.  from obtaining  any payment  out of the moneys      lying in  the Grindlays  Bank and  held  by  the  joint      receivers or receiver." This interim  order was  confirmed by  the Division Bench by its order  dated  September,  9,  1980.  Hence  these  three appeals by special leave.      Frankly, this  Court ordinarily does not interfere with interim   orders   unless   and   until   manifest-injustice convulsively shakes  it. Even  then, with our usual response of reluctance to undertake to examine interim orders, only a notice to show cause why special leave should not be granted and the  interim stay  application not  be  considered,  was issued to  the respondents.  After notices  were served  and counter-affidavits and rejoinder affidavits were filed, this matter came  before us  about four weeks back, our hands off attitude  to   interim  orders  manifested  itself  when  we adjourned the  matter  for  four  weeks  indicating  to  the parties,  especially  the  respondents  who  are  appellants before the  High Court, to take executive steps to get their appeals placed on the cause list for hearing and to move for expeditious disposal  of the same. We also declined to grant any interim  relief. We  so adjourned the matter in the fond hope that we may hang on to our tenuous view that ordinarily we would not undertake to deal with interim orders. Our hope has proved a mirage.      When this matter was listed before us on April 3, 1981, Mr. Kackkar,  learned counsel  for the Appellant stated that almost within  the dying  embers of the time granted by this Court an attempt was 456 made by  the respondents  to get  their matter listed in the High Court  and the  only order  that the  court has made is that the  appeals be added to the cause list of the Division Bench and  it would  be anybody’s guess when this last added matter would  reach hearing. Having no alternative left open to us, we have heard the matter.      As the appeals are pending before the Division Bench of the Calcutta  High Court  and are  to be heard on merits, we would make  every  manageable  human  effort  to  avoid  any expression of opinion which may even remotely interfere with judicious adjudication  of the  issues before  the  Division Bench. However,  we make  it clear that even if there is any express or  implied opinion  discernible in  this order, the same has  to be  wholly ignored  by  the  High  Court  while disposing of  the appeals on merits. With this extra caution we proceed  to dispose  of these  appeals. As every stage of the proceeding  has been  neatly delineated  by us  with the orders of  the Court referred to in details, the permissible inferences may alone be set out.      What is  the  injudicious  situation  which  may  bring disrepute to  judicial process,  stares  in  the  face.  The consent decree under which appellant was entitled to recover Rs. 2,85,000 with interest, at the rate of 6% per annum from the date  of the  decree till  realisation was  made by  the Court on January 6, 1970. The decree without being satisfied in its minutest part has collected dust for 11 years. And at present who  is impeding the execution of the decree ? It is the 1st  respondent company  which has  been a  party to the consent  decree  and  which  decree  has  become  final  and unassailable. There  is no proceeding at precent questioning the correctness,  validity or  legality of the decree or its binding character on the 1st respondent company.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

    It is  again incontrovertible  that the judgment-debtor Ist respondent company has in its fixed deposit with the 4th respondent Bank a sum of Rs. 8,40,000. That his amount is of the ownership  of the judgment-debtor is not in dispute. 3rd respondent S.K.  Dutta was  once a receiver. Respondents say that he  has been  removed and  respondents 5  and 6 who are respectively the Advocates of the Ist respondent company and the  2nd  respondent  State  of  West  Bengal  claim  to  be appointed as joint receivers. The date of appointment is not made clear  but the order dated March 7, 1980 (Annexure ’J’) by Mrs.  Padma Khastgir,  J. leaves  no room  for doubt that till that  date 3rd respondent S.K. Dutta was not discharged as receiver. 457      The High  Court on  a petition  of the appellant levied attachment under order 21 Rule 52 C.P.C. On the amount Lying in fixed  deposit account  with 4th  respondent Bank  in the name of  3rd respondent  S.K.Dutta as  receiver of the first respondent company  by  order  dated  April  5,  1978.  This attachment order  was levied  by the Master of the Court and the  interim  attachment  was  confirmed.  Admittedly  these orders were not challenged.      Sabyasachi Mukerjee, J. by his order dated May 4, 1978, directed 3rd  respondent S.K. Dutta to pay the amount of Rs. 4,20,702.94 P.  Out of  the amount  Lying in  fixed  deposit receipt No. 1002-2539 with the fourth respondent Bank to the appellant in  satisfaction of  the decree.  This  order  may appear to have become final as not having been questioned by any one.  Manoj Kumar  Mukherjee, J.  by his order dated May 24, 1979, directed 3rd respondent S.K.Dutta, receiver of the Ist respondent  company to pay Rs. 4,20,702.94 p. Out of the fixed deposit  account held  by him  as receiver  of the Ist respondent company  to the  appellant  and  a  consequential order was  made directing the Bank to pay the amount set out in the  order to  the appellant.  This order  dated May  24, 1979, may  appear to  have become final as it appears not to have been questioned, challenged or appealed by any one.      Failure to  comply with the court’s mandatory direction led the  appellant to  file a  petition  for  contempt.  The alleged contemners impleaded were Ist respondent company and the 4th  respondent Bank.  When  this  petition  for  taking action in  contempt came up before Manoj Kumar Mukherjee, J. there appeared  on  the  scene  one  Mr.  Majumdar,  learned counsel for the 4th respondent Bank as well as the two joint receivers functioning in dual capacity as joint of receivers as well  as learned  counsel  for  the  respective  clients, namely, Ist  respondent company and the 2nd respondent State of West  Bengal. At  the hearing  of this  motion for taking action for  contempt, Mr.  Majumdar learned  counsel for the 4th respondent  unreservedly agreed to comply with the order of the Court on May 24, 1979, which means that he agreed and undertook to  pay the  amount of  Rs. 4,20,702.94 out of the fixed deposit  account in  the name  of 3rd  respondent S.K. Dutta, receiver of the Ist respondent company. It is because the Bank  agreed unreservedly  and unconditionally to pay up the amount that the motion for taking action in contempt was discharged by  the Court.  No action  was sought to be taken against the joint receivers who had interposed themselves in the meantime.  Therefore, the  court declined  to accede  to their request to stay a 458 portion of the order. The order dated June 7, 1979, is not a fresh order  on merits.  It was  merely an implementation of the order  dated May  24, 1979,  which may  appear  to  have become final and binding. Yet the 1st respondent company and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

the 2nd  respondent State  of West  Bengal took  no  further action and surprisingly the Bank also joined hands with them by not  paying the  amount till  March 7, 1980. Maybe, there may be  some interim  orders. We  are not made knowledgeable about the  nature and character of those interim orders save and except what has been recited in the order dated March 7, 1980, of  Mrs. Padma Khastgir, J. However, there seems to be some apparent  collusion between the company on one hand and the joint  receivers in not complying with the court’s order dated May  24, 1979,  even though  action for  contempt  was avoided by  giving an unconditional undertaking to carry out that order.      The three  appeals were  preferred  against  the  order dated March 7, 1980. That order has nothing to do with order dated May  24, 1979, or the order dated June 7, 1979. At any rate, the  order dated  May 24,  1979, may  appear  to  have become final.      Would it  be appropriate in such circumstances to grant an interim  stay of the portion of an order which may appear to have  become final  in an  appeal against  an  altogether different order?      Mr. Shankar  Ghose, learned  counsel for the respondent wanted us  to take  note of  various allegations against the 3rd respondent,  the receiver, the fact that he was removed, the fact  that he  was colluding with the appellant and that he was  negligent as  also that  he was  discharged at  some stage of  the proceedings.  At this stage, these contentions in our  opinion are not very relevant. Maybe, there is merit in these  contentions. Maybe, the Division Bench hearing the appeals by  the Ist  and 2nd  respondent will  examine these contentions on  merits. The only live issue is whether would it be  fair while  granting stay of the order dated March 7, 1980 to  effectively stay  the order  dated  March  24,1979, which appears not to be under appeal though its validity may be questioned  in the  course of  hearing of  the appeal? If that be  so, could the Court overlook attempt of the Ist and 2nd respondents  to circumvent  the order  by  obtaining  an interim stay  in such  manner that an order not under appeal gets  frozen  ’?  It  is,  therefore,  that  we  propose  to interfere with  the interim order made by the Division Bench of the  Calcutta High Court on September 9, 1980, confirming the ad  interim order  dated March  7, 1980,  to  a  limited extent so that an impression that the court’s process can be lightly trifled with, may be avoided. 459      Under the circumstances the proper thing to do would be to set aside the interim stay order dated March 27, 1980, as also the  order dated  September  9,  1980,  confirming  the interim order  but in  order to ensure the resultant justice as we  are interfering with an interim order, we consider it proper to  give certain  directions, while  restoring status quo ante in the event the appeals filed by respondents 1 and 2 are allowed or any specific positive direction is given by the court in this behalf. We accordingly allow these appeals and set aside the orders made by the Division Bench on March 27, 1980 and September 9, 1980. The result would be that the order dated  May 4,  1978, by  Sabyasachi Mukherjee,  J. and order dated  May 24, 1978, made by Manoj Kumar Mukherjee, J. as also  the undertaking  given by  the manager  of the  4th respondent Bank  through his  learned counsel  Shri Majumdar before Manoj  Kumar Mukherjee,  J. On June 7, 1979, would be revived  and   would  be  effective  and  will  have  to  be implemented. In  pursuance to the aforementioned two orders, the 4th  respondent Bank will have to pay Rs. 4,20,702.94 p. to the  decree-holder appellant towards the decretal amount.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

On receipt  of the amount the appellant shall pass a receipt acknowledging receipt of the amount and to the extent of the payment of  the amount herein indicated the liability of the 4th respondent  Bank to the Ist respondent company or anyone claiming on  its behalf or the 3rd respondent receiver shall stand discharged.  Before the  amount is paid, the appellant shall give  security to  the satisfaction  of the High Court and also  an undertaking  on affidavit to the Division Bench of  the   Calcutta  High  Court  before  which  the  appeals preferred by the Ist and 2nd respondents are pending that in the  event   the  appeals   are  allowed   which  makes   it consequently necessary for the appellant to repay the amount received from  the 4th  respondent Bank  in payment  of  the decretal amount, the appellant shall deposit the said amount with the  Calcutta High Court within one month from the date of the order of the appellate Bench.      The appeals  will stand disposed of as herein indicated with no order as to cost. N.V.K.    Appeals allowed. 460