{"id":151854,"date":"2010-09-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-09-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-h-enterprises-pvt-ltd-vs-the-court-receiver-on-28-september-2010"},"modified":"2015-05-25T17:04:38","modified_gmt":"2015-05-25T11:34:38","slug":"m-h-enterprises-pvt-ltd-vs-the-court-receiver-on-28-september-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-h-enterprises-pvt-ltd-vs-the-court-receiver-on-28-september-2010","title":{"rendered":"M & H Enterprises Pvt. Ltd vs The Court Receiver on 28 September, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
M & H Enterprises Pvt. Ltd vs The Court Receiver on 28 September, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: R. S. Dalvi<\/div>\n
                                          1\n\nPGK\n\n           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                                               \n             ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n\n                                                       \n                           Suit No.2544 of 2004\n\n\nM & H Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.                    ..           ..       Plaintiffs\n\n\n\n\n                                                      \n        v\/s.\nThe Court Receiver, High Court,\nBombay & ors.                                  ..           ..       Defendants\n\n\n\n\n                                              \nMr.Mahendra Ghelani i\/by M\/s.Law Charter for Plaintiffs.\n                            \nMs.P.A. Mhatre i\/by M\/s.Thakore Jariwala & Associates for\nDefendant No.1.\n                           \nMr.S.R. Rajguru for Defendant No.3.\n             ------\n\n                                      CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.\n           \n\n\nDate of reserving the judgment :               10th August, 2010\n        \n\n\n\nDate of pronouncing the judgment : 28th September, 2010\n\nJUDGMENT :\n<\/pre>\n
    1.This suit is filed for recovery of certain amounts from
\n      the Defendants as shown in prayers (a) to (d) of the
\n      Plaint.     The    suit,        though   filed    against            the       seven<\/p>\n
      Defendants, has, in fact, been prosecuted only against
\n      Defendant    No.3,        the    Commissioner      of      Customs.                The
\n      Plaintiffs        claim    is     essentially     for      refund          of      the
\n      amount paid to the Court Receiver for goods agreed to
\n      be sold and delivered to the Plaintiffs by the Court<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:29:27 :::<\/span>
\n                                       2<\/span><\/p>\n
      Receiver    which     could    not   be    delivered           though          sold,
\n      because the goods were not found, as Defendant No.3 had<\/p>\n
      sold them wrongfully.\n<\/p>\n
    2.One W.G. Forge and Allied Industries Ltd. (the Company)
\n      had   imported      various    goods      in    1982-83          being         steel<\/p>\n
      parts, bars and scrap material under various Bills of
\n      Entry.     The Company had not made payment of custom duty
\n      thereon. The custom duty was demanded by Defendant No.<\/p>\n
      3. The goods were not released. The Company has been
\n      ordered to be wound up by an order of this Court. The<\/p>\n
      Company had taken a loan from the Industrial Finance
\n      Corporation of India (IFCI).              IFCI filed Miscellaneous<\/p>\n
      Petition No.475 of 1984 for recovery of the amount and
\n      for enforcing certain charge and guarantee thereon. A<\/p>\n
      Receiver came to be appointed therein on 8th October
\n      1984.\n<\/p>\n
    3.The Receiver was given power to sell the movable and<\/p>\n
      immovable properties of the Company under order dated
\n      30th October 1984. The sale was to be free from all
\n      encumbrances     as    per    directions        passed       on      5th     August
\n      1986.    The   Court   Receiver      had       obtained        an      inventory<\/p>\n
      report of the movable and immovable properties which
\n      were lying in the various bonded warehouses on 17th
\n      January 1991 and thereafter on 22nd August 1997.                                   The
\n      Custom Authority sold the goods lying in certain bonded<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:29:27 :::<\/span>
\n                                          3<\/span><\/p>\n
      warehouses by auction in September 1994.                                 The Court
\n      Receiver offered to sell the movable properties being<\/p>\n
      the goods imported by the Company under an auction sale
\n      on   as is where is and what is basis                                as per the<\/p>\n
      further directions for sale passed on 27th July 1998
\n      and 5th October 1998. The Court Receiver put up the<\/p>\n
      goods for auction in various bonded warehouses on 27th
\n      September 2001.         There was a further order to sell
\n      certain goods specially under lot No.3 passed on 11th<\/p>\n
      September 2002.        The Court Receiver invited offers for
\n      public auction by a Public Notice on 26th September<\/p>\n
      2002.\n<\/p>\n
    4.Defendant    No.4     and    the       Plaintiffs        bid      at      the       said
\n      auction   on    7th    October         2002   and      9th     October             2002.\n<\/p>\n
      Thereafter      there       has    been       an      agreement               between
\n      Defendant    No.4     and    the       Plaintiffs         under         which         the<\/p>\n
      Plaintiffs represented the interest of Defendant No.4
\n      and the suit is withdrawn against Defendant No.4.\n<\/p>\n
    5.The Court passed an order on 10th December 2002 that
\n      the auction purchaser would not be liable for the past
\n      liabilities      of    the    Company.             The       Court          Receiver<\/p>\n
      conducted      sale   of     various      goods        of      which          he      was
\n      appointed Receiver including the goods purchased at the
\n      auction by the Plaintiff and Defendant No.4 on 11th
\n      December 2002.        Defendant No.4 was accepted the highest<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:29:27 :::<\/span>
\n                                        4<\/span><\/p>\n
      bidder for Rs.65.80 Crores.              The sale was confirmed in
\n      favour of Defendant No.4. The Plaintiffs were their<\/p>\n
      nominees for lot No.3.               Consequently, the Plaintiffs
\n      were accepted by the Court Receiver as the purchaser on<\/p>\n
      24th December 2002.\n<\/p>\n
    6.The   goods,    which     were   to    be    sold    under        the       public
\n      notice, were as per the terms and conditions of the
\n      Court Receiver.          The terms and conditions specified<\/p>\n
      that offerers were to take inspection at the bonded
\n      warehouses.      The    Plaintiffs
\n                               ig             filed       an    undertaking               in
\n      respect of lot No.3, for which they were nominated by
\n      Defendant No.4, with the Court Receiver on 26th March<\/p>\n
      2003.   The Court Receiver handed over to the Plaintiffs
\n      certain goods which were at the bonded warehouses at<\/p>\n
      Thane and Manpada. The Plaintiffs had not paid custom
\n      duty on those imported goods at that time. The goods at<\/p>\n
      Goregaon were not handed over as they were reported to
\n      be missing. The Plaintiffs came to learn for the first<\/p>\n
      time about missing bonds at Goregaon when they sought
\n      to    take     delivery     of   the        goods     along          with         the
\n      representative      of    the    Court      Receiver        on      19th      April
\n      2003.\n<\/p>\n
    7.It appears that the claim of Defendant No.3 was brought
\n      to the notice of the Court.                 That was the statutory
\n      claim for payment of custom duty failed to be made by<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:29:27 :::<\/span>
\n                                         5<\/span><\/p>\n
      the Company at the time of the import of the goods.
\n      The Court directed Rs.5 Crores to be set aside with the<\/p>\n
      Official Liquidator towards the claim of Defendant No.3
\n      on 25th April 2003.             It was seen that Defendant No.3<\/p>\n
      had sold the goods to recover part of the custom duty.
\n      This was sold despite the fact that the Court Receiver<\/p>\n
      was appointed in respect of the goods being the movable
\n      property of the Company with power to sell.                                On the
\n      premise      that   the     goods     were    custodia           legis,           the<\/p>\n
      Division Bench of this Court on 23rd June 2003 called
\n      upon Defendant No.3 to explain the sale of the six<\/p>\n
      bonds which were reported to be sold by the Mumbai Port
\n      Trust.      Defendant No.3 tendered apology for having sold<\/p>\n
      the six bonds for Rs.47,68,437\/-. The Division Bench of
\n      this Court directed Defendant No.3 to deposit the said<\/p>\n
      amount in this Court along with interest amounting to
\n      Rs.74,82,298\/- on 30th September 2003. This was after<\/p>\n
      Defendant No.3 was allowed to appropriate the custom
\n      duty   on    certain      six   bonds   –    That     amount          has       been<\/p>\n
      deposited to the credit of this suit. These are all
\n      admitted facts.\n<\/p>\n
    8.That     amount     is    essentially        claimed        by       both         the<\/p>\n
      Plaintiffs as well as Defendant No.3.\n<\/p>\n
    9.Mr.Ghelani on behalf of the Plaintiffs has specifically
\n      stated that the Plaintiffs give up all the claims other<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:29:27 :::<\/span>
\n                                    6<\/span><\/p>\n
      than refund of the said amount in this suit.\n<\/p>\n
    10.Mr.Rajguru on behalf of Defendant No.3 claims the said
\n      amount as an adjustment towards custom duty payable in<\/p>\n
      respect of the goods under the other bonds which were
\n      handed over by the Court Receiver to the Plaintiffs at<\/p>\n
      Thane and Manpada, etc. without payment of custom duty.\n<\/p>\n
    11.Upon their respective claims, the Plaintiffs have been<\/p>\n
      directed by the Division Bench of this Court on 19th
\n      December 2003 to file a suit which is this suit.\n<\/p>\n
    12.Defendant No.3 is stated to have filed a claim in<\/p>\n
      January 2004 before the Official Liquidator in respect
\n      of custom duty payable.      The Plaintiffs filed this suit<\/p>\n
      in August 2004.\n<\/p>\n
    13.The Plaintiffs claim refund of the amount deposited to
\n      the   credit   of   this   suit   on   the   premise           that        the<\/p>\n
      Plaintiffs had made payment to the Court Receiver who
\n      was to sell the goods to the Plaintiffs as per orders
\n      passed in Miscellaneous Petition No.475 of 1984.                           The
\n      Plaintiffs claim that the goods could not be delivered<\/p>\n
      because Defendant No.3 sold them wrongfully.\n<\/p>\n
    14.Defendant No.3 has accepted that the goods were sold
\n      when they were stated to be in the custody of the Court<\/p>\n
                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:29:27 :::<\/span>
\n                                          7<\/span><\/p>\n
      Receiver and has, therefore, brought the amount of the
\n      sale value of these goods to the credit of this suit.\n<\/p>\n
      Hence the contempt of Court in selling the goods, if
\n      any, is purged.         The real legal question that arises is<\/p>\n
      whether the Plaintiffs or Defendant No.3 has priority
\n      over    the   said      amount    in     view   of     their         respective<\/p>\n
      claims.\n<\/p>\n
    15.Defendant No.3 claims the amount under the statutory<\/p>\n
      liability of the Company prior to it being wound up.\n<\/p>\n
      Defendant     No.3    claims\n                                ig      that    the   liability            arose         the\n      moment    the     goods     were       imported        and       had        to       be\n      discharged.        If    that     liability     was      not       discharged,\n                              \n<\/pre>\n
      Defendant No.3 was entitled to confiscate the goods and
\n      sell them to recover the custom duty.                       Defendant No.3<\/p>\n
      would    have   the     first     statutory     charge         or      right         in
\n      respect of such sale.             Defendant No.3 claims that, in<\/p>\n
      fact, the Court Receiver could not have been appointed
\n      in respect of the goods assessable to the custom duty<\/p>\n
      which     should        have      been      initially              discharged.
\n      Consequently, Defendant No.3 claims that even if the
\n      Company is wound up and goes into liquidation, the
\n      goods,    which    so    lie     confiscated      by     Defendant             No.3,<\/p>\n
      cannot be taken to be the assets of the Company to be
\n      sold by the Official Liquidator. Similarly Defendant
\n      No.3 claims that the Court Receiver cannot be appointed
\n      in respect of the goods representing such liability and<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:29:27 :::<\/span>
\n                                           8<\/span><\/p>\n
      hence the goods cannot be called custodia legis.\n<\/p>\n
    16.Mr.Rajguru on behalf of Defendant No.3 contended that
\n      had the Court been informed of the liability of the<\/p>\n
      Company in respect of the imported goods under various
\n      Bills    of    Entry    in   Miscellaneous          Petition            No.475          of<\/p>\n
      1984, the Court Receiver would not have been appointed
\n      in respect of at least such value of the goods as would
\n      represent the custom duty payable and remaining unpaid.\n<\/p>\n
    17.The    Plaintiffs        claim\n                                ig            is    de   hors        the       claim          of\n      Defendant       No.3.        The        simplicitor           claim          of       the\n      Plaintiffs      is    that   they       bid   at    the      auction.               They\n                              \n<\/pre>\n
      deposited the amount required by the Court Receiver.
\n      They have to be delivered the goods for which they made<\/p>\n
      respective payments.            They were delivered some of the
\n      goods    but    not    others    as      they      were     reported            to      be<\/p>\n
      missing as Defendant No.3 had sold them to recover
\n      custom duty remaining unpaid.\n<\/p>\n
    18.The Court Receiver, who is Defendant No.1 in the suit
\n      and against whom no relief is claimed, but who as an
\n      officer of the Court must assist the Court, is shown to<\/p>\n
      have issued the terms and conditions of the sale dated
\n      25th    September       2002.           The     terms       and         conditions
\n      specifically require the bidders to inspect the goods.
\n      The goods are offered for inspection on 30th September<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:29:27 :::<\/span>
\n                                             9<\/span><\/p>\n
      2002, 3rd October 2002 and 4th October 2002. Clause 11
\n      of the Terms and Conditions specifically recites that<\/p>\n
      the purchasers would be taken to have inspected the
\n      goods.       The   Plaintiffs             claim        to      have          requested<\/p>\n
      inspection. However, the Plaintiffs did not inspect the
\n      goods themselves.              They could not have inspected the<\/p>\n
      goods    because     they        were          already      sold.         The        Court
\n      Receiver has, in all cases, put up the goods on auction
\n      on     as is where is and what is                  basis.           Hence if they<\/p>\n
      were    offered     for    inspection            and     not     inspected,              the
\n      goods are sold by the Court Receiver at the risk of the<\/p>\n
      auction purchaser.\n<\/p>\n
    19.The Plaintiffs claim that specifically by an order
\n      dated 10th December 2002, the Court clarified that the<\/p>\n
      purchaser would not be liable for past liabilities of
\n      the Company.       This clarification or order of the Court<\/p>\n
      must    be   subject      to    and       in    accordance          with       the       law
\n      relating      to   the     past       liabilities.                  If      the        past<\/p>\n
      liabilities        are    statutory             liabilities,              which          are
\n      required to be discharged and are not discharged, no
\n      Court can absolve any party of any such liability. The
\n      past liabilities, which the purchaser could be absolved<\/p>\n
      of, would be the general liabilities of the Company
\n      itself or by the Official Liquidator on its behalf.\n<\/p>\n
    20.Based upon the pleadings between the parties followed<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:29:27 :::<\/span>
\n                                        10<\/span><\/p>\n
      by   the   withdrawal      of    the    claim      of      the       Plaintiffs
\n      against all the Defendants except Defendant No.3 and<\/p>\n
      the aforesaid claims of the respective parties, the
\n      following issues only remain to be considered as re-\n<\/p>\n
      framed on 7th July 2008:\n<\/p>\n
           (1) Whether the Plaintiffs prove that they are
\n           entitled to be repaid the amount paid by them to
\n           the Court Receiver in respect of the auction sale
\n           conducted by the Court Receiver. –           No<\/p>\n
           (2) What relief,            if    any,    are the Plaintiffs
\n           entitled to ? –      ig                  As per final order.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    21.Consequently,       the   Plaintiffs         claim       refund           of      the<\/p>\n
      amount     from    the   Court    Receiver       and       Defendant             No.3
\n      claims adjustment in respect of custom duty payable for<\/p>\n
      the other goods purchased by the Plaintiffs in the
\n      other bonded warehouses, the custom duty for the goods<\/p>\n
      under the six bonds purchased by the Plaintiffs being
\n      allowed and appropriated by Defendant No.3.\n<\/p>\n
    22.The Plaintiffs as well as Defendant No.3 have examined
\n      one officer each.           These witnesses have been cross-
\n      examined.         The    question      to   be    determined               is      the<\/p>\n
      essential     question     of    law    based      upon        the       admitted
\n      facts. Several of these facts have been put to the
\n      witnesses     to    show    their      admissions         thereto.                 The
\n      essential oral evidence is only with regard to the act<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:29:27 :::<\/span>
\n                                       11<\/span><\/p>\n
      of the parties with regard to the goods under the bonds
\n      put up for the auction by the Court Receiver, sought to<\/p>\n
      be     purchased    by    the   Plaintiffs     and        got        sold        by
\n      Defendant No.3. Inasmuch as the questions in cross-\n<\/p>\n
      examination relate or refer to acts of parties covered
\n      by the law, they need not even be considered.\n<\/p>\n
    23.Issue No.(1) : The goods were imported by the Company
\n      since 1982-83.       The Company was liable to pay custom<\/p>\n
      duty     thereon.        That   remained    unpaid.              The       Court
\n      Receiver came to be appointed in Miscellaneous Petition<\/p>\n
      No.475 of 1984.          The Court Receiver conducted the sale
\n      of various goods under various bonds lying in various<\/p>\n
      warehouses. For that sale the Court Receiver had issued
\n      his terms and conditions.            The essential term was that<\/p>\n
      the auction purchasers were to take inspection of the
\n      goods and to purchase them on            as is where is what is<\/p>\n
      basis.     This is usual and has not been disputed. The
\n      Company was ordered to be wound up.                     That was in a<\/p>\n
      separate proceeding.\n<\/p>\n
    24.The Plaintiffs must be taken to have inspected the
\n      goods.     Even if the Plaintiffs do not inspect the goods<\/p>\n
      offered for the inspection, the Plaintiffs would be
\n      bound by the offer made.             Defendant No.4 initially and
\n      later the Plaintiffs, as the nominee of Defendant No.4,
\n      deposited the amounts representing the purchase price<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:29:27 :::<\/span>
\n                                      12<\/span><\/p>\n
    as    bid   by    them.       The     Plaintiffs        also         filed         the
\n    necessary undertaking with the Court Receiver.                                     The<\/p>\n
    Plaintiffs could be handed over the goods only upon the
\n    undertaking being filed and the amount being deposited.\n<\/p>\n
    Yet   if    at   all   the    goods    are    not    handed          over,         the
\n    Plaintiffs       claim for recovery and refund of the amount<\/p>\n
    paid by the Plaintiffs to the Court Receiver is only on
\n    the    essential       rule    of     justice,       equity           and        good
\n    conscience. That recovery would be subject to all the<\/p>\n
    laws governing the sale of those goods. At best, the
\n    Plaintiffs       could,   therefore,
\n                             ig                  claim     under         the       quasi
\n    contract with the Court Receiver under Section 70 of
\n    the Indian Contract Act 1872 (the Act).                       Section 70 of<\/p>\n
    the Act runs thus:-\n<\/p>\n
             70. Obligation of person enjoying benefit of
\n            non-gratuitous act.- Where a person lawfully<\/p>\n
            does anything for another person, or delivers
\n            anything to him, not intending to do so
\n            gratuitously, and such other person enjoys the
\n            benefit thereof, the latter is bound to make<\/p>\n
            compensation to the former in respect of, or to
\n            restore, the thing so done or delivered.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    The Plaintiffs claim to have lawfully paid for the<\/p>\n
    goods under the bonds.           The Plaintiffs, of course, did
\n    not intend to do so gratuitously. However, under the
\n    contract with the Court Receiver, the Plaintiffs would
\n    not be legally entitled to recover the amount paid by<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:29:27 :::<\/span>
\n                                      13<\/span><\/p>\n
      the Plaintiffs since the Plaintiffs were liable to take
\n      inspection of the goods before depositing the purchase<\/p>\n
      price.     Hence the Court Receiver cannot be taken to
\n      have enjoyed the benefit. In fact, neither did the<\/p>\n
      IFCI, which had filed Miscellaneous Petition No.475 of
\n      984 in which it got the Court Receiver appointed with<\/p>\n
      the    power   to   sell.    The    Court   Receiver,            therefore,
\n      cannot be bound to make compensation to the Plaintiffs
\n      or to restore the amount to the Plaintiffs for the<\/p>\n
      deposit made. The Court Receiver, being the officer of
\n      the Court, must only hold the property as directed by<\/p>\n
      the Court.\n<\/p>\n
    25.The claim of Defendant No.3 is that the Plaintiffs
\n      must     not   be   handed   over    the    amount        paid         by      the<\/p>\n
      Plaintiffs in respect of the sale of the goods even
\n      otherwise validly made because Defendant No.3 has a<\/p>\n
      prior statutory claim for payment of custom duty which
\n      was not paid on the other goods and on the other bonds<\/p>\n
      similarly imported by the Company under several Bills
\n      of Entries which Defendant No.3 can adjust towards the
\n      liability for payment of custom duty by the Company.\n<\/p>\n
    26.Upon the Plaintiffs         claim relating to the knowledge
\n      of Defendant No.3 for appointment of Court Receiver, in
\n      the otherwise lengthy and verbose cross-examination of
\n      the Defendants       witness, the Plaintiffs                Advocate has<\/p>\n
                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:29:27 :::<\/span>
\n                                            14<\/span><\/p>\n
      sought admissions with regard to the matters afore-
\n      stated, which need not be repeated.\n<\/p>\n
    27.The only aspect with regard to which there has been<\/p>\n
      some    cross-examination            other       than    the        afore-stated
\n      aspects    between         the     parties   is    with       regard          to      the<\/p>\n
      opinion    of    a        valuer    one   Kishore       Parker          dated         22nd
\n      August 1997 which is stated to have been bogus and
\n      which is admitted to have been so by the witness of<\/p>\n
      Defendant No.3.              The valuer was also the Defendant
\n      against whom the Plaintiffs have withdrawn the suit and<\/p>\n
      hence that part of the cross-examination of Defendant
\n      No.3 cannot be considered.\n<\/p>\n
    28.Mr.Ghelani on behalf of the Plaintiffs has argued that<\/p>\n
      the claim of Defendant No.3 must be lodged with the
\n      Official Liquidator and in that behalf a question has<\/p>\n
      been put to the witness of Defendant No.3, which is
\n      answered in the affirmative.                 However, that question of<\/p>\n
      law must be decided on the law as is laid down, the
\n      evidence        of         the     witness        of       Defendant                No.3
\n      notwithstanding and despite such claim having been made
\n      before the Official Liquidator.\n<\/p>\n
    29.Similarly the case put by the Plaintiffs                            Advocate to
\n      the    witness       of    Defendant      No.3    that      the       Plaintiffs
\n      claim is for refund of the goods, which could not be<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:29:27 :::<\/span>
\n                                            15<\/span><\/p>\n
      delivered because Defendant No.3 had wrongfully sold
\n      them having been answered in the affirmative is of<\/p>\n
      little consequence.\n<\/p>\n
    30.Further     stress      by    the    Plaintiffs         that       despite           the
\n      claim of Rs.60 Crores by Defendant No.3, the Court had<\/p>\n
      declined such a claim and only ordered Rs.5 Crores to
\n      be set aside with the Official Liquidator, which is
\n      answered in the affirmative, is also subject to the law<\/p>\n
      relating to payment of custom duty, which no Civil
\n      Court can, by its order, alter.\n<\/p>\n
                                ig                        It may be mentioned
\n      that it matters little what the Court had directed to
\n      be   set    aside.    The     claim       of    Defendant        No.3       must        be<\/p>\n
      adjudicated upon its own merits as a question of law
\n      and whether or not Defendant No.3 had lodged the claim<\/p>\n
      with the Official Liquidator.\n<\/p>\n
    31.Further a large number of questions directed to the
\n      witness of Defendant No.3 in cross-examination upon the<\/p>\n
      goods      under   the    six      bonds       being    sold        despite           the
\n      appointment of Court Receiver as a contemptuous act has
\n      been sought to be undone by the unconditional apology
\n      admittedly     given      and      thereafter          the    refund          of      the<\/p>\n
      amount lying with the Court Receiver to one of the two
\n      parties       claiming        it   can     be    only     considered              as      a
\n      question of law.\n<\/p>\n
                                                          ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:29:27 :::<\/span>
\n                                      16<\/span><\/p>\n
    32.Mr.Rajguru on behalf of Defendant No.3 relied upon a
\n      judgment    of   the   Supreme      Court   in       the       case        of      of<\/p>\n
      Collector of Customs, Calcutta vs. Dytron (India) Ltd.,
\n      1999 (108) ELT 342 (Calcutta), by which this case is<\/p>\n
      completely covered and the parties are bound.                               It is
\n      held in that case that when goods are imported by the<\/p>\n
      Company the Custom Authorities are entitled to claim
\n      custom duty before the goods can be sold as assets of
\n      the Company which has subsequently gone in liquidation.\n<\/p>\n
      It is further held that the claim of Custom Authorities
\n      is outside the proceedings under Sections 529, 529-A<\/p>\n
      and 530 of the Companies Act. It is, therefore, held
\n      that until and unless the statutory dues of the Custom<\/p>\n
      Authorities are paid, the goods cannot be taken to be
\n      available for sale to the purchasers at all.                         The goods<\/p>\n
      would, therefore, form a part of the assets of the
\n      Company    available     for      distribution           by       virtue           of<\/p>\n
      liquidation only subject to the payment of custom duty,
\n      interest    etc.       It    is     observed       that         the        Custom<\/p>\n
      Authorities have a statutory right of detention and
\n      confiscation and hence that claim would be even prior
\n      to   the   claims   under    Sections    529-A        and       530       of     the
\n      Companies Act, which would be the claims of creditors<\/p>\n
      (though preferential) in respect of sale-proceeds of
\n      the assets of the Company sold in liquidation which are
\n      to be determined.           It is, therefore, held that the
\n      claim of the Custom Authorities would be outside the<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:29:27 :::<\/span>
\n                                  17<\/span><\/p>\n
    proceedings under the aforesaid sections.\n<\/p>\n
    In that case the Company had imported certain chemicals
\n    prior to its liquidation.         The Official Liquidator took<\/p>\n
    possession of the assets of the Company.                 The chemicals
\n    were stored in Bengal bonded warehouses without payment<\/p>\n
    of custom duty.        The Official Liquidator valued the
\n    chemicals and advertised them for sale describing them
\n    as the assets of the Company.         The highest bidder made<\/p>\n
    the payment of the price. The Custom Authorities made
\n    the application to the Court restraining the Official<\/p>\n
    Liquidator from delivering the goods to the purchaser
\n    until and unless the custom duty was paid. The Court<\/p>\n
    observed that the goods purchased by the Company prior
\n    to    liquidation   could   not    have   been      removed           by      the<\/p>\n
    Company from the warehouse at all without payment of
\n    import duty and the interest accumulated thereon.\n<\/p>\n
    The Court considered the provisions of the Customs Act,<\/p>\n
    1962, including Section 111 relating to confiscation of
\n    improperly imported goods by the Custom Authorities, if
\n    they are removed from the customs area without the
\n    required permission of the Authority.                It is held that<\/p>\n
    the    power   of   confiscation    under      the       said         section
\n    includes the power of sale.          It is further held that
\n    violation of Section 111 of the Customs Act renders the
\n    importer liable for penalty.          Hence if the goods are<\/p>\n
                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:29:27 :::<\/span>
\n                                         18<\/span><\/p>\n
      removed from the warehouse without payment of custom
\n      duty   and    without      the         permission         of        the       Custom<\/p>\n
      Authorities,      the    Custom          Authorities              can         either
\n      confiscate     the   goods    or        collect      the       duty         payable<\/p>\n
      thereon.\n<\/p>\n
      Similarly the Court considered Sections 68, 71 and 72
\n      of the Customs Act, under which full amount of duty
\n      chargeable under goods not removed form the warehouse<\/p>\n
      at the expiration of the period during which they are
\n      permitted    to   remain
\n                             ig    in        the   warehouse          can       also        be
\n      charged together with penalty, rent, interest and other
\n      charges    payable   thereon.            This   could          be     under         the<\/p>\n
      detention-cum-sale notice issued under Section 72(2) of
\n      the Customs Act.        In that case such a notice was not<\/p>\n
      given before the proceedings in the Company Court for
\n      sale of the chemicals were initiated. It was held that<\/p>\n
      nevertheless      statutory            right      of       detention                and
\n      confiscation by the Custom Authorities had to be met<\/p>\n
      before the goods could be validly sold as the assets of
\n      the Company.\n<\/p>\n
    33.Further the purchasers of the goods in that case were<\/p>\n
      held not to have stepped into the shoes of the Company
\n      as far as the liability to make payment of custom duty
\n      was concerned.       It was held that the sale, if any, to
\n      the purchasers of the chemicals in that case should<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:29:27 :::<\/span>
\n                                              19<\/span><\/p>\n
      have taken place only after payment of custom duty by
\n      the Company or its representative in interest being the<\/p>\n
      Official        Liquidator           upon     the     liquidation               of       the
\n      Company.        The Custom Authorities were held entitled to<\/p>\n
      confiscate and sell the goods.\n<\/p>\n
    34.It    has    been       argued      by     Mr.Rajguru         that        since         the
\n      Plaintiffs did not take inspection of the goods offered
\n      by the Court Receiver, the Plaintiffs are alone to<\/p>\n
      blame        for        their        contributory           negligence.                  The
\n      Plaintiffs         contract with the Court Receiver was for<\/p>\n
      purchase      of     the    bonded          goods.    The     Plaintiffs               have
\n      claimed refund of the amount paid since the goods were<\/p>\n
      not    delivered.           The      goods       could     not       be      delivered
\n      because the goods were missing.                       They were seen to be<\/p>\n
      missing       because       they          were      sold      by       the         Custom
\n      Authorities.         It is seen that they were sold correctly<\/p>\n
      by    the    Custom      Authorities          in     satisfaction            of      their
\n      statutory right thereunder which was the duty of the<\/p>\n
      Company which imported the goods to pay before the
\n      goods could be removed from the warehouse or sold by
\n      the Company or its representative, the Court Receiver.
\n      In that contract the Plaintiffs were put to notice of<\/p>\n
      the     goods      by    the     offer        of     inspection           which          the
\n      Plaintiffs failed to take.                    The Plaintiffs should have
\n      taken       inspection.         If    the      Plaintiffs           do      not        take
\n      inspection they must be taken to have contributed to<\/p>\n
                                                             ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:29:28 :::<\/span>
\n                                          20<\/span><\/p>\n
      the negligence themselves. In case of negligence of a
\n      contracting party under common law the claim of the<\/p>\n
      Plaintiff     would   fail    even        if   the     Defendant             was       at
\n      fault.       The    rule     of     contributory            negligence               was<\/p>\n
      succinctly laid down by Denning, L.J. in the case of
\n      Jones vs. Livox Quarries Ltd., (1952) 2 QB 608 at page<\/p>\n
      615, which was later approved and followed in the case
\n      of Westwood vs. The Post Office, (1973) 3 All England
\n      Report 184 (HL) pp. 192, 193. The rule runs thus:\n<\/p>\n
                   Although contributory negligence does not<\/p>\n
                  depend on a duty of care, it does depend on
\n                  forseeability ….\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   A person is guilty of contributory negligence
\n                  if he ought reasonably to have foreseen that,
\n                  if he did not act as a reasonable, prudent
\n                  man, he might be hurt himself; and in his<\/p>\n
                  reckonings he must take into account the
\n                  possibility of others being careless.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (See also Moor vs. Nolan, (1960) 94 I.L.T.R. 153.)<\/p>\n
    35.Similarly in the case of Boy Andrew, (1948) A.C. 140
\n      at   148,    when   both     the        parties    were        negligent             and<\/p>\n
      claimed     contributory     negligence           on    the       part       of      the
\n      other as the cause of the accident being the collusion
\n      of two ships the doctrine of contributory negligence
\n      was brought into play.\n<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:29:28 :::<\/span>
\n                                   21<\/span><\/p>\n
    36.Consequently, the Plaintiffs made payment of the goods
\n      upon the premise that they had inspected the goods and<\/p>\n
      were responsible for the payment made for the sale on
\n       as is where is what is          basis.        The Court Receiver,<\/p>\n
      who collected the amount as the officer of the Court on
\n      behalf    of   the    Petitioner,       IFCI     in     Miscellaneous<\/p>\n
      Petition No.475 of 1984, was to account for the said
\n      amount    to   that   Petition.     Defendant         No.3,          who       is
\n      statutorily entitled to confiscate and sell the goods<\/p>\n
      as custom duty was not paid thereupon. The Plaintiffs
\n      have not disputed that the custom duty has not been<\/p>\n
      paid on the other bonded goods of the Company including
\n      the   goods    withdrawn   by     the    Plaintiffs           and        taken<\/p>\n
      delivery of.    Defendant No.3 is, therefore, inter alia,
\n      entitled to adjust the amount paid by the Plaintiffs as<\/p>\n
      the price of six bonds in the Goregaon warehouse for
\n      the custom duty payable upon the other bonded goods in<\/p>\n
      Thane and Manpada.\n<\/p>\n
    37. In the case of D. Konda Pentiah vs. Chenchu Rangiah,
\n      AIR<\/a> 1955 Hyderabad 176 the concept of adjustment of an
\n      earlier liability is set out and distinguished form a
\n      set-off claimed in the Suit by the Defendant thus:-\n<\/p>\n
                The plea of adjustment or satisfaction premises
\n               that the extinction of the plaintiff s claim or
\n               satisfaction took place prior to the date on
\n               which the defence was raised in the suit. By a
\n               claim for set off, on the other hand, the<\/p>\n
                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:29:28 :::<\/span>
\n                                       22<\/span><\/p>\n
            defendant prays that the Court should enter
\n            satisfaction in respect of the plaintiff s dues
\n            from the outstanding dues owed by the plaintiff<\/p>\n
            to the defendant. It is implicit in such a plea
\n            that the mutual indebtedness has not been<\/p>\n
            adjusted till that date and adjustment is sought
\n            in the suit itself.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    (See also State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Raja Balbhadra
\n    Singh, AIR<\/a> 1964 M.P. 231 para-4.)<\/p>\n
    38.In this case the custom duty was statutorily payable
\n    since   1982-83         when
\n                              ig    the    goods     were      imported             under
\n    various Bills of Entry. Hence the goods were lying in
\n    the bonded warehouses.            Six bonds were admittedly sold<\/p>\n
    to the Plaintiffs and the goods were lifted by the
\n    Plaintiffs      without        payment    of     custom          duty.              The<\/p>\n
    liability    has    arisen       well    prior    to      the       Plaintiffs
\n    claim    even      in     the    earlier       application               made         in<\/p>\n
    Miscellaneous Petition No.475 of 1984.                        The amount of
\n    custom duty could, therefore, be adjusted by Defendant<\/p>\n
    No.3.\n<\/p>\n
    39.In fact, the amount lying with the Court Receiver to
\n    the credit of this suit is far less than the custom<\/p>\n
    duty payable thereon. The cross-examination on behalf
\n    of the Plaintiffs itself suggests that Rs.60 Crores
\n    were claimed by Defendant No.3 out of which only Rs.5
\n    Crores were allowed to be kept aside with the Official<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:29:28 :::<\/span>
\n                                      23<\/span><\/p>\n
    Liquidator.       This    Court       is   not   concerned             with        the
\n    calculation      of     the    exact       amount      of       custom           duty<\/p>\n
    remaining unpaid.             This Suit is concerned with the
\n    adjustment of only a part of the claim of Defendant No.<\/p>\n
    3   to   the   extent    of    Rs.74,82,298\/-          representing                the
\n    amount of sale of goods by Defendant NO.3 towards its<\/p>\n
    claim of custom duty recovered as such sale and brought
\n    back into Court upon the directions of the Division
\n    Bench of this Court to purge the contempt alleged and<\/p>\n
    for which the Plaintiff has been directed to sue.\n<\/p>\n
    40.Consequently, the Plaintiffs would not be entitled
\n    to recover any part of the amount lying to the credit<\/p>\n
    of this suit.\n<\/p>\n
    41.Defendant No.3 would be entitled to be handed over
\n    the amount lying to the credit of this suit along with<\/p>\n
    all accrued interest in part payment of the custom duty
\n    payable on the goods imported by the Company prior to<\/p>\n
    its liquidation as held in Dytron s case (supra). Since
\n    the amount is only an adjustment, it does not require
\n    separate Court fee to be paid or any separate action in
\n    law to be taken by Defendant No.3.\n<\/p>\n
    42.Hence the following order:\n<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 16:29:28 :::<\/span>
\n                                  24<\/span><\/p>\n
                                ORDER<\/p>\n
    (i)The Plaintiffs     suit is dismissed with no order as to
\n      costs.\n<\/p>\n
    (ii)The Registrar\/Prothonotary and Senior Master of this<\/p>\n
      Court, with whom the amount has been deposited and
\n      invested, shall hand over the entire amount along with
\n      all accrued interest thereon to Defendant No.3 after 6<\/p>\n
      weeks from today.\n<\/p>\n
                           ig           (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)\n                         \n           \n        \n\n\n\n\n\n\n                                             ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 16:29:28 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court M & H Enterprises Pvt. Ltd vs The Court Receiver on 28 September, 2010 Bench: R. S. Dalvi 1 PGK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Suit No.2544 of 2004 M & H Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. .. .. Plaintiffs v\/s. The Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-151854","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM & H Enterprises Pvt. Ltd vs The Court Receiver on 28 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-h-enterprises-pvt-ltd-vs-the-court-receiver-on-28-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M & H Enterprises Pvt. Ltd vs The Court Receiver on 28 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-h-enterprises-pvt-ltd-vs-the-court-receiver-on-28-september-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-09-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-25T11:34:38+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"25 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-h-enterprises-pvt-ltd-vs-the-court-receiver-on-28-september-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-h-enterprises-pvt-ltd-vs-the-court-receiver-on-28-september-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M & H Enterprises Pvt. Ltd vs The Court Receiver on 28 September, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-25T11:34:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-h-enterprises-pvt-ltd-vs-the-court-receiver-on-28-september-2010\"},\"wordCount\":4845,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-h-enterprises-pvt-ltd-vs-the-court-receiver-on-28-september-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-h-enterprises-pvt-ltd-vs-the-court-receiver-on-28-september-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-h-enterprises-pvt-ltd-vs-the-court-receiver-on-28-september-2010\",\"name\":\"M & H Enterprises Pvt. Ltd vs The Court Receiver on 28 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-09-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-25T11:34:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-h-enterprises-pvt-ltd-vs-the-court-receiver-on-28-september-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-h-enterprises-pvt-ltd-vs-the-court-receiver-on-28-september-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-h-enterprises-pvt-ltd-vs-the-court-receiver-on-28-september-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M & H Enterprises Pvt. Ltd vs The Court Receiver on 28 September, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M & H Enterprises Pvt. Ltd vs The Court Receiver on 28 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-h-enterprises-pvt-ltd-vs-the-court-receiver-on-28-september-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M & H Enterprises Pvt. Ltd vs The Court Receiver on 28 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-h-enterprises-pvt-ltd-vs-the-court-receiver-on-28-september-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-09-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-25T11:34:38+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"25 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-h-enterprises-pvt-ltd-vs-the-court-receiver-on-28-september-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-h-enterprises-pvt-ltd-vs-the-court-receiver-on-28-september-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M & H Enterprises Pvt. Ltd vs The Court Receiver on 28 September, 2010","datePublished":"2010-09-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-25T11:34:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-h-enterprises-pvt-ltd-vs-the-court-receiver-on-28-september-2010"},"wordCount":4845,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-h-enterprises-pvt-ltd-vs-the-court-receiver-on-28-september-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-h-enterprises-pvt-ltd-vs-the-court-receiver-on-28-september-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-h-enterprises-pvt-ltd-vs-the-court-receiver-on-28-september-2010","name":"M & H Enterprises Pvt. Ltd vs The Court Receiver on 28 September, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-09-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-25T11:34:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-h-enterprises-pvt-ltd-vs-the-court-receiver-on-28-september-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-h-enterprises-pvt-ltd-vs-the-court-receiver-on-28-september-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-h-enterprises-pvt-ltd-vs-the-court-receiver-on-28-september-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M & H Enterprises Pvt. Ltd vs The Court Receiver on 28 September, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/151854","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=151854"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/151854\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=151854"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=151854"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=151854"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}