High Court Receiver appointed in recovery suit for interim reliefs & property possession. Missing assets addressed.

The High Court appointed a Court Receiver in a recovery suit by ICICI Bank Limited against a company for interim reliefs, including property possession. Concerns over missing movable properties led to inventory reports and meetings. The appellant's claim as a director was questioned for lack of locus standi. Emphasis was placed on expediting property sales to protect interests, with a modified sale schedule approved. Terms of sale were accepted, with directions for auction, security, and cooperation with the Official Liquidator. The appeal was disposed of, with parties bearing costs.

---

---

Issues:
1. Appointment of Court Receiver for interim reliefs in a recovery suit.
2. Allegations of theft and missing movable properties of a company in liquidation.
3. Locus standi of an appellant claiming to be a director of the company.
4. Compliance with court orders for sale of company properties.
5. Proposed schedule for the sale of building, plant, and machinery.
6. Terms and conditions of the sale.
7. Directions given by the High Court.

Issue 1: Appointment of Court Receiver for interim reliefs
In a recovery suit filed by ICICI Bank Limited against a company, the High Court appointed a Court Receiver for interim reliefs, including the appointment of a Court Receiver to take possession of the property. The Court Receiver prepared inventory reports and took steps for the sale of the properties.

Issue 2: Allegations of theft and missing properties
Complaints of pilferage of movable properties of the company arose, leading to concerns about missing materials. The Court Receiver conducted meetings and prepared inventory reports to address the issue. The appellant, claiming to be a director of the company, sought to attend meetings and proceedings related to the Court Receiver's actions.

Issue 3: Locus standi of the appellant
The High Court questioned the appellant's locus standi as he was neither a party to the suit nor ordered to be part of the proceedings. Despite the appellant's claims, the Court emphasized the need to protect the company's property and expedite the sale process to prevent depreciation of assets.

Issue 4: Compliance with court orders for property sale
The Court noted non-compliance with earlier orders directing the sale of company properties. Emphasizing the urgency of the sale to safeguard the interests of the bank and the company, the Court highlighted the importance of confirming inventory and ensuring property protection.

Issue 5: Proposed schedule for property sale
The Court Receiver submitted a proposed schedule for the sale of the building, plant, and machinery. The High Court modified the schedule to allow for a larger inspection period for prospective purchasers, specifying dates for advertisement, inspection, submission of offers, and auction sale.

Issue 6: Terms and conditions of the sale
The Court approved the terms and conditions of the sale submitted by the Court Receiver. No objections were raised, and the Court directed strict adherence to the schedule of sale, confirmation of missing properties, and enhanced security measures to prevent damage or unauthorized removal of assets.

Issue 7: Directions given by the High Court
The High Court issued directions for the Court Receiver to auction the property as per previous orders, adhere to the sale schedule, confirm missing properties, ensure stringent security measures, and cooperate with the Official Liquidator for compliance. The appeal was disposed of with parties bearing their own costs.

---