Supreme Court Disposes of Appeal by Tenant Against Receiver Appointment Without Adjudicating Merits. Court Directs Calcutta High Court Division Bench to Decide Expeditiously in Light of BIFR Revival Proposal by Third Party.

Civil appeal by special leave against an order of the Calcutta High Court Division Bench in a receivership matter arising from a landlord-tenant dispute involving a sick industrial company.

Appellants sought Supreme Court interference with the order appointing a Receiver and consideration of changed circumstances, including a BIFR revival proposal by O.P. Mall and Associates, to permit revival of the sick industry.

A learned single judge appointed a Receiver over the premises; the appellants contended changed circumstances, including a Memorandum of Understanding before BIFR where O.P. Mall and Associates undertook to revive the sick industry, and sought relief from the Receiver appointment.

A learned single judge of the Calcutta High Court appointed a Receiver. The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court passed an order on 29 November 1996 in G.A. No.3616/96, against which the present appeal by special leave was filed. The Supreme Court passed an interim order on 4 December 1996 making the Receiver a party respondent and directing the Receiver not to part with possession until further orders.

Whether the Supreme Court should interfere with the order of the learned single judge appointing a Receiver in view of changed circumstances, including a Memorandum of Understanding before BIFR for revival of the sick industry. Whether the appeal pending before the Division Bench should be disposed of expeditiously.

Appellants, through senior counsel Dipankar Gupta, contended that changed circumstances existed: there was a Memorandum of Understanding before BIFR in which O.P. Mall and Associates undertook to revive the sick industry of the defendant-tenant; if permitted to work under the direction and control of the Receiver, it would not cause any impediment to the interest of the respondent-landlord. Respondent-landlord disputed the stand taken by the appellants regarding the BIFR revival proposal.

The Supreme Court did not lay down a substantive legal principle on the merits of the receiver appointment or the BIFR revival proposal. It adopted a procedural approach: where changed circumstances are brought to the court's notice during the pendency of an appeal against an interim order, the Supreme Court may refrain from adjudicating the merits and direct the High Court to dispose of the appeal expeditiously according to law, while preserving the status quo through interim protection.

We decline to go into the merits of the matter. Suffice it to interfere with the order of the learned single judge appointing a Receiver. It would be open to the parties to place the entire material before the Division Bench which would go into the matter on merits and decide according to law. we request the learned Chief Justice to direct G.A. No. 3616/96 and the connected Appeal APOT No.626/96 to be posted before appropriate Division Bench for final disposal preferably on any date between 6th January, 1997 and 9th January, 1997. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

A learned single judge of the Calcutta High Court appointed a Receiver over the premises. The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court passed an order on 29 November 1996 in G.A. No.3616/96. The appellants filed a special leave petition before the Supreme Court, and leave was granted. On 4 December 1996, the Supreme Court passed an interim order making the Receiver a party respondent, directing notice with dasti service, and restraining the Receiver from parting with possession until further orders. Parties filed affidavits and counter-affidavits. On 18 December 1996, the Supreme Court disposed of the appeal with directions for expeditious disposal of G.A. No.3616/96 and APOT No.626/96 before the Division Bench between 6 January 1997 and 9 January 1997.