JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was as follows :–– These are two petitions made by Nizamur Rahaman Khan. The first petition was affirmed on 10th March, 1994 and was moved on 11th March, 1994. 2. Before that an order was made by this Court on 4th March, 1994. On the said date i.e., 4th March, 1994 it was submitted on behalf of Nizamur Rahaman Khan that he as hirer had paid and/or caused to be paid the total sum of Rs. 1,15,650/- and the last of such payment was made on 25th February, 1994 amounting to Rs. 15,000/-. It was also submitted that the said hirer had brought a bank draft for a sum of Rs. 10,000/-. The said order dated 4th March, 1994 is set out hereunder :–– "It has, Inter alia, been submitted that the hirer Nizamur Rahaman Khan has said and/or caused to be paid a total sum of Rs. 1,15,650/- and the last of such payment was made on 25.2.94 amounting to Rs. 15,000/-. It has also been submitted that the said hirer has brought a bank draft for a sum of Rs. 10,000/-. It has also been submitted that the Terms of Settlement was never explained to the said Nizamur Rahaman Khan. It has also been submitted that the said Nizamur Rahaman Khan came to know about the Terms of Settlement for the first time in February 1994. Be that as it may, the Receiver is directed not to sell, transfer or dispose of the motor vehicle, bearing No. BR-06M/4066 until 11.3.94. This order made today will automatically come to an end on the expiry of 11.3.94, unless the hirer obtains order on formal application in writing to be moved on notice to the other side. The said Nizamur Rahaman Khan will be at liberty to make an appropriate application by 9.3.94 and renew his prayer for extension of the order or for further or other orders. The learned Advocate on behalf of the Financier B. C. L. Financial Services Ltd. who is appearing in Court is unable to explain how and in what circumstances the Terms of Settlement was filed without referring to his record. The learned Advocate on behalf of the Financier B. C. L. Financial Services Ltd. who is appearing in Court is unable to explain how and in what circumstances the Terms of Settlement was filed without referring to his record. However, he admits that the xerox copy which has been produced before this Court does not bear any signature on behalf of B. C. L. Financial Services Ltd, nor does it bear any signature by or on behalf of the Financier but the same bears the signature of the Advocate of B. C. L. Financial Services Ltd. The learned Advocate on behalf of Nizamur Rahaman Khan makes over to the Advocate-on-Record on behalf of B. C. L. Financial Services Ltd., a bank draft drawn on the Central Bank of India, Calcutta, N. B. O. bearing No.08/00127 dated 21.2.94 for a sum of Rs. 10,000/-. Let the said bank draft be kept by the Advocate-on-Record of B. C. L. Financial Services Ltd. without prejudice to the mutual rights and contentions of the parties and subject to further orders of this Court. Let all the papers which have been produced before this Court on behalf of the hirer be kept on record and produced before this Court when the formal application will be heard. All parties and the Receiver to act on a signed copy of the minutes of this dictated order on the usual undertaking". Thereafter the time to make the application by the hirer was extended till 11th March, 1994 and the first application was made on 11th March, 1994. The prayers in the said petition are, inter alia, to the effect are as follows :–– "(a) The default on the part of the petitioner in making payment the entire sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- by 16th July, 1993 be condoned and the petitioner be allowed to pay the balance sum of Rs 34,350/- within such time as to this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. "(b) M/s. B.C.L. Financial Services Limited as also the learned Receiver appointed by this Hon'ble Court over the said vehicle be directed to hand over the said vehicle bearing Registration No. BR-06M/4066 forthwith to the petitioner. "(b) M/s. B.C.L. Financial Services Limited as also the learned Receiver appointed by this Hon'ble Court over the said vehicle be directed to hand over the said vehicle bearing Registration No. BR-06M/4066 forthwith to the petitioner. "(c) An order of injunction be passed restraining the learned Receiver appointed by this Hon'ble Court over the said vehicle bearing Registration No. BR-06M/4066, as also M/s B. C. L. Financial Services Limited from selling or encumbering or alienating and/or from taking any step for the purpose of disposing off and/or selling and/or encumbering the said vehicle, bearing Registration No. BR-06M/4066." 3. Needless to say that the Order dated 4th March, 1994 was made on notice and in the presence of the Advocate for the financier who was B.C.L. Financial Services Ltd. 4. Upon the application being moved on 11th March, 1994 an order was made by this Court. The said order was also made in the presence of the financier's Advocate and directions were also given with regard to the filing of the affidavit. 5. It is to be noted that by the Order dated 11th March, 1994 the Receiver was directed to forthwith make over possession of the vehicle bearing Registration No. BR-06M/4066 to Nizamur Rahaman Khan, the hirer. 6. Since the vehicle was not made over to the said Nizamur Rahaman Khan caused the matter to be mentioned. On 17th March, 1994 this Court made the following order :–– "The matter is mentioned on behalf of the hirer/petitioner Nizamur Rahaman Khan submitting that the orders made is not complied by the parties and/or Receiver. Let the copy of the document bearing printing No. 19021 dated 22.2.94 as produced by the learned Advocate for M/s. B. C. L. Financial Services Ltd. be kept on record. The learned Advocate for the Financier submits that copies of the documents with regard to the alleged sale as alleged to be held on 22.2.94 are lying at the Office of the learned Advocate-on-record. Let those documents along with two sets of xerox copies and the Receipt Book be produced in Court at 4 o' clock to-day. There is another document which has been submitted by the learned Advocate with the heading "Accountant Md. Nizamur Rahaman Khan". Let that document be also kept on record. The parties will be at liberty to obtain xerox copies of those two documents which have been submitted in Court. There is another document which has been submitted by the learned Advocate with the heading "Accountant Md. Nizamur Rahaman Khan". Let that document be also kept on record. The parties will be at liberty to obtain xerox copies of those two documents which have been submitted in Court. Such xerox copies are to be prepared under the control and supervision of Mr. Dipankar Bhattacharjee and the financier will pay the remuneration of Mr. Dipankar Bhattacbarjee assessed at 10 Gms. and such costs of xerox copies of the documents are also to be borne by financier. Xerox copies of such document or documents are to be supplied by the learned Advocate of the Financier to the learned Advocate of the hirer/petitioner." 7. It is to be noted that pursuant to and in terms of the Order dated 4th March, 1994 a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was paid to and received by the financier in terms of the said orders dated 4th March 1994 and further amount was also paid to and received by the financier as per order dated 11th March, 1994. 8. On 17th March, 1994, the learned Advocate for the financier produced before this Court certain documents which were directed to be kept on record. One of the said documents is a copy of printed receipt No. 19021 dated 22.2.94 as produced by the learned Advocate for B.C.L. Financial Services Ltd. which was directed to be kept on record. Xerox copies were submitted in Court on 17th March, 1994 showing purported sale of the vehicle bearing No. BR-06M/4066 which is a passenger bus built on a Tata Chassis. 9. Before going into any further question it has to be seen that on 1st October, 1991 by an order passed by P. K. Majumdar, J. as His Lordship then was, Terms of Settlement were filed in this Court and an order was made by consent of the parties in accordance with the Terms of Settlement. Under the said Terms of Settlement the hirer is to pay a total sum of Rs. 1,51,600/- and interest and other sums payable in terms of the order. The said amount was to be paid in instalments as provided in the Terms of Settlement. By the said order Mr. Ashok Kumar Tiwari of the petitioner i.e. the financier was appointed Receiver over the said vehicle. 1,51,600/- and interest and other sums payable in terms of the order. The said amount was to be paid in instalments as provided in the Terms of Settlement. By the said order Mr. Ashok Kumar Tiwari of the petitioner i.e. the financier was appointed Receiver over the said vehicle. It was provided that in default of any two instalments or the last instalment the respondent shall pay to the petitioner interest @ 18% per annum thereon from the date of default until payment and all costs incurred. The Receiver was authorised to take possession of the vehicle in default of payment of any two instalments or the last instalment and it was provided that the Receiver will sell the vehicle without any further order of Court by private treaty or by public auction and after deducting all expenses paid to the petitioner the amount remaining in due and the balance, if any, to the respondent No.1 i.e. Nizamur Rahaman Khan. 10. On 16th March, 1992 another order was passed by this Court which was as follows :– "The petitioner does not wish to proceed against the respondents No. 1 & 3. The disputes between the petitioner and the respondents No.1 and 3 have been settled. The Terms of Settlement which have been filed to-day have been duly signed by the petitioner and the respondents No.1 and 3 and the respective Advocates-on-records. Accordingly an order is passed in Terms of the Settlement so far as the respondents No.1 and 3 are concerned. It is made clear that no part of this order nor any portion of the Terms of Settlement will affect the respondent No.2 in any manner whatsoever. The Receiver, the Officer-in-Charge, Kalyanpur P. S. Dt. Samastipur, Bihar and all parties to act on the signed copy of the minutes of this order on the usual undertaking." 11. On 19th April, 1993 another order was passed by this Court by consent of the parties which is to the following effect :–– "By consent of the parties the matter is treated as on the day's list. There will be an order in terms of the Terms of Settlement filed in Court today. All parties and Officer-in-Charge, Samastipur Police Station, under District Samastipur, Bihar are to act on a signed copy of the minutes of this order on the usual undertaking." 12. There will be an order in terms of the Terms of Settlement filed in Court today. All parties and Officer-in-Charge, Samastipur Police Station, under District Samastipur, Bihar are to act on a signed copy of the minutes of this order on the usual undertaking." 12. After the order dated 19th April, 1993 was made the following payments have been made by the petitioner Nizamur Rahaman Khan and have been received by the financier B.C.L. Financial Services Ltd. "4.5.93 Insurance Settlement Claim received by B. C. L. Financial Services Ltd. in respect of claim as 510404/31/92-93/112. Rs. 26,350.00 17.6.93 Under receipt No. 15145 Rs. 18,000.00 28.5.93 Under receipt No. 15345 Rs. 5,000.00 17.7.93 Under receipt No. 15712 Rs. 8,300.00 17.8.93 Under receipt No. 16139 Ra. 10,000.00 21.9.93 Under receipt No. 16680 Rs. 15,000.00 2.11.93 By Bank Draft No. 763871 Rs. 15,000.00 21.12.93 By receipt No. 18063 Rs. 13,000.00 25.2.94 By receipt No. 19077 Rs. 15,000.00 4.3.94 By pay Order No. 08/01127 Rs. 10,000.00 11.3.94 By Pay Order Rs. 24,350.00 -------------------- Rs. 1,50,000.00" -------------------- 13. The payment dated 25th of February, 1994 for Rs. 15,000/- was received by the financier under the heading 'Terms of Settlement' and bears a remark 'as per Terms of Settlement filed at Calcutta High Court'. The Receipt Number is 19077. It is to be noted that it is not disclosed in the said receipt that the said vehicle had already been sold on 22nd of February, 1994. The earlier payment was received on 21st of December, 1993 by Receipt No. 18063 which is for Rs. 3,000/-. It is also to be noted that the payment of Rs. 10,000/- on 4th of March, 1994 and the further payment of Rs. 24,350/- on 11th March, 1994 was also received pursuant to order of Court but without disclosing to the Court or to the party that the vehicle had already been sold. The order dated 11th of March, 1994 directed the Receiver to forthwith make over possession of the said vehicle to the hirer petitioner. If at all any purported sale was held by the Receiver then the question of receipt of further money from the hirer could not arise on 25th of February, 1994 or on 4th of March, 1994 or on 11th of March, 1994. Since the total payment made upto 21st of December, 1993 taken along with the alleged sum of Rs. If at all any purported sale was held by the Receiver then the question of receipt of further money from the hirer could not arise on 25th of February, 1994 or on 4th of March, 1994 or on 11th of March, 1994. Since the total payment made upto 21st of December, 1993 taken along with the alleged sum of Rs. 1,15,000/- allegedly realised as sale proceeds would exceed Rs. 1,50,000/- by about more than Rs. 60,000/-. 14. It is to be noted that the Receiver Ashok Tewari is an employee of B.C.L. Financial Services Ltd. 15. One Swapan Kumar Mallick, a personnel Officer of B. C. L. Financial Services Ltd. was examined in Court. He produced a copy of the Receipt No. 19021 dated 22nd February, 1994. That receipt is granted by the company for allegedly having received Rs. 1,15,000/- from N. G. Biman Singh Account Nizamur Rahaman Khan. It bears the mark Terms of Settlement at the top and at the bottom "as per the Terms of Settlement case filed at the Calcutta High Court". The receipt is signed by the Cashier of B. C. L. Financial Services Ltd. He also produced a copy of the letter addressed to Puspa Transport issued by the Area Manager of the financier directing Puspa Transport to deliver the vehicle to N. G. Biman Singh. He also produced a Form No. 36 written to the Registering Authority, inter alia, stating as follows :–– "We B.C.L. Financial Services Ltd. (formerly known as Bhaskar Credit Limited), 1/1, Camac Street, Calcutta-16 have taken possession motor vehicle No. BR-06M/4066 bearing Engine No. 497 SP-21945376 Chassis No. 357011933906 make TDV Model 1990 owing to the default of the registered owner Nizamur Rahaman Khan of village and post office Dhiuli, district Mazaffarpur, Bihar under the provisions of the Agreement of Hire Purcbase/V/Hypothecation. (1) The certificate of registration of the said vehicle is surrendered herewith; (2) the registered owner has refused to deliver the certificate of registration to us; (3) the registered owner is absconding. We request you to cancel the certificate and issue a fresh certificate of registration in our names". The said letter is signed by B. C. L. Financial Services Ltd. by their director. This form does not bear any date. We request you to cancel the certificate and issue a fresh certificate of registration in our names". The said letter is signed by B. C. L. Financial Services Ltd. by their director. This form does not bear any date. There is another form No. 35 in which it is, inter alia, stated "We hereby declare that the agreement of hire purchase entered into between us has been terminated. We, therefore, request that the note endorsed in the certificate of registration of Vehicle No. BR-06M/4066 in respect of the said Agreement between us be cancelled. The certificate of registration together with the fees is enclosed". This letter purports to be dated 22.2.94 and there is a signature of the financier at the bottom. At the place where the signature of the registered owner is supposed to be given it appears that as per the deposition the Receiver has put a cryptic initial with the word 'receiver'. Another document has been produced which purports to be from Ashok Tiwari the Receiver that "the date 22.2.94 in which it is, inter alia, certified that in the matter of 1286 of 1991 in the High Court at Calcutta, he had been appointed a Receiver against vehicle No. BR-06M/4066. In the said matter an order dated 19th April, 1993 has been passed wherein I have declared owner of the said vehicle. I have sold this vehicle to Mr. N. G. Biman Singh of Mayurankhar, district Imphal. The concerned motor vehicle department is requested to transfer ownership of the vehicle in the name of the purchaser. This letter also bears a cryptic initial which Ashok Tiwari stated to be his signature. 16. Swapan Kumar Mallick, the Personnel Officer of the financier was examined in Court and when he was asked to whom you sold the vehicle-his answer was "some man of Imphal", to Mr. N. G. Biman Singh of Mayurankhar, District Imphal". When he was asked at what price the vehicle was sold his––answer was Rs. 1,15,000/- by cash, and the money was deposited with the Receiver who was present and the Receiver took the initiative and the receipt was issued to the new purchaser. The witness produced receipt and the receipt has been issued by B.C.L. Financial Services Ltd. In favour of N. G. Biman Singh Account Nizamur Rahaman Khan as has already been referred to above with the remark "as per Terms of Settlement". The witness produced receipt and the receipt has been issued by B.C.L. Financial Services Ltd. In favour of N. G. Biman Singh Account Nizamur Rahaman Khan as has already been referred to above with the remark "as per Terms of Settlement". The said Mallick when asked as to who signed the transfer paper-his answer was "director, Nirranjanlal Todi". The said Mallick when he was asked "did you see Khan yourself"––his answer was "no, I have not seen him. Therefore, the question of connection does not arise". 17. The Receiver was also examined on 18th March, 1994. According to his evidence it appears that the vehicle was brought to Calcutta on January 21, 1994 and was kept at the garage of Puspa Transport. When he was asked who is Puspa Transport––he answered that "B. C. L. Financial Services Ltd. had taken their place to keep the vehicle on rental basis". When he was asked "were any rent bill submitted to him"––he answered in the negative. In answer to Q. 20 he stated that the "vehicle was lying there. Nizamur Rahaman Khan came several times to the company and also to me. The company had asked him to pay the balance which was due but he did not and at last the vehicle was sold". In Q. 36 the said Ashok Tiwari was asked "Can you tell this Court when the vehicle was sold and how the vehicle was sold ?"––answer was "vehicle was sold on 22nd February, 1994; the vehicle was sold to Imphal party". In Q. 37 he was asked "You did not know Biman Singh before 22nd February, 1994". His answer was "he comes to the office and negotiates about the vehicle––so the company has sold the vehicle". In Q. 38 he was asked "In what connection does he come to the office ?"––his answer was "for purchasing the vehicle". In Qs. 52 to 57 he admitted that it was a Mini Bus and the make was Tata. He also admitted that the price of the Tata Chassis on the day was about Rs. 3 lakhs. At another place he said that "the chassis if it is purchased new the price is Rs. 2,60,000/-". When he was asked about other expenses with regard to this (apparently referring to the vehicle)––his answer was "it comes to Rs. 3 lakhs". He also admitted that the price of the Tata Chassis on the day was about Rs. 3 lakhs. At another place he said that "the chassis if it is purchased new the price is Rs. 2,60,000/-". When he was asked about other expenses with regard to this (apparently referring to the vehicle)––his answer was "it comes to Rs. 3 lakhs". When he was asked of the body (apparently referring to the type or body) built on the vehicle he said that it was a bus body. When he was asked "did the purchaser pay anything personally to you as Receiver", then his answer was 'no'. When he was asked "have you any idea as to what is to be done with the sale proceeds of the vehicle"––his answer was 'no'. When he was asked "So in your view the sale proceeds of the vehicle could be paid to the petitioner-financier ?"––his answer was 'yes'. 18. From the documents produced it appears that the receipt for the alleged consideration money of Rs. 1,15,000/- alleged to be paid in cash was issued by the financier. The vehicle was directed to be delivered by the financier to the purchaser. Even the Receiver himself stated in answer to Q. 37 that the purchaser came to the office and negotiated about the vehicle so the company has sold the vehicle. 19. A receiver is an Officer of Court and the possession of the vehicle has to be with the Receiver. In this case there is nothing to show that the effective control and possession of the vehicle was in the hands of the Receiver, the sale of the vehicle has purportedly been made by the Company (meaning thereby the financier) and the receipt shows that the alleged consideration has been received by the financier though it is headed as Terms of Settlement yet the Terms of Settlement did not authorise the financier to sell or deliver the vehicle to any party. 20. The Terms of Settlement gives power to the Receiver to sell the vehicle in public auction or under private treaty and after paying the petitioner their dues and meeting his costs and expenses the Receiver has been directed to pay the residue to the respondent No.1. 21. It appears that the parties themselves were on their own extending the time for payment, without any reference to Court. 21. It appears that the parties themselves were on their own extending the time for payment, without any reference to Court. Even a letter was written on behalf of the financier to Nizamur Rahaman Khan on 5th November, 1993 stating that a sum of Rs. 96,750/- was due on account of balance hire and Rs. 7,650/- on account of interest and Rs. 1,500/- was due on account of collecting the hirer in attempting to take possession of the vehicle and as such a total sum of Rs. 1,05,900/- was alleged to be due. By the said letter dated 5th November the financier demanded payment from the hirer to be made within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the letter. It was threatened that unless payment is made within 15 days they will request the Receiver to take possession of the vehicle. There is no letter on record or in evidence showing that the financier wrote anything to the Receiver with regard to the payment received by the financier and/or the amount due or outstanding as per the Terms of Settlement. It is to be noted that even if the parties had chosen to extend the time for payment, it was necessary to proceed properly by giving intimation to the Receiver with regard to the payment made and the amounts due as per Terms of Settlement. There is no such letter on record. Furthermore, it is quite apparent that the delivery of the vehicle has been made by the financier and the entire sale proceeds have been collected by the financier. The financier had no authority or power to sell the vehicle or to receive the consideration therefor or to deliver the vehicle. I am also of the view that the financier had no right to fill any Form No. 36 or to submit the same to the Registering Authority in view of the fact that the vehicle was under the Receiver. The Form No. 35 is also a nullity because there is no question of the Receiver or the financier terminating any Hire Purchase Agreement. 22. By my order dated 13th April, 1994, I directed the petitioner to serve a copy of the notice of motion as also the petition upon Biman Singh. The Form No. 35 is also a nullity because there is no question of the Receiver or the financier terminating any Hire Purchase Agreement. 22. By my order dated 13th April, 1994, I directed the petitioner to serve a copy of the notice of motion as also the petition upon Biman Singh. It was also mentioned that the said Biman Singh will be entitled to appear in this matter and make suitable representations and injunction restraining the said Biman Singh from dealing with and disposing of the said vehicle bearing registration No. BR-06M/4066 was also passed. The said Biman Singh appeared pursuant to the said order and also caused affidavit to be filed being the affidavit affirmed by him on 8th November, 1994. He had also stated in his affidavit that he had gone through the order of Terms of Settlement dated 1st October, 1991, 12th March, 1992 and 19th April, 1993 along with the signed copy of the minutes of the orders relating to the said Terms of Settlement. This is apparent that be purportedly purchased a vehicle under the alleged receipt No. 19021 dated 22.2.94 for Rs. 1,15,000/- issued by the Financier. If the said Biman Singh was aware with regard to the orders made by this Court there was no question or his making payment to the financier or receiving an order for delivery of the vehicle from the financier. His allegations that he purchased the vehicle from the Receiver are falsified from the very fact that he neither raid the Receiver nor did he receive delivery of the vehicle from the Receiver. The evidence of the Receiver who is also an employee of the Financier is inter alia to the effect that the company sold the vehicle. If that was so, then the sale was not made by the Receiver nor was the sale made in accordance with the Terms of Settlement filed in Court. In accordance with the Terms of Settlement the Receiver should have received the entire consideration and should have retained the same and he could only part with the same after calling the meeting of the parties and deciding as to how much is payable to whom as per Terms of Settlement. In accordance with the Terms of Settlement the Receiver should have received the entire consideration and should have retained the same and he could only part with the same after calling the meeting of the parties and deciding as to how much is payable to whom as per Terms of Settlement. In any event, the Receiver before deciding to sell was normally under an obligation to give prior notice to the parties and invite them to procure offers from third parties if at all he was inclined to sell the vehicle by a private treaty. It seems to me that the vehicle was for more in value than the purported price at which the same was purported to be sold. Ordinarily a receiver being an Officer of Court was bound to get the vehicle valued by a valuer before proceeding to sell. He should also ask the parties to let him know as to what are the respective cases of the parties as to payments under the Terms of Settlement and the outstanding if any. 23. It was represented before me on behalf of Biman Singh that he was bonafide purchaser for value without notice. It has to be noted here that the said vehicle was in possession of the Receiver and it was Receiver alone who could take possession of the said vehicle as per terms of the order. The said Biman Singh had full knowledge about the said orders which were made by this Court from time to time as he has stated in his affidavit that he had gone through the said orders. The property namely the said vehicle was subject to orders of the Court and it was the Receiver alone who could take or give possession of the said vehicle and sell the same. If at all the same was to be sold, it was to be sold or could be sold only by the Receiver by making proper attempts for getting the valuation and best offer for purchase. He should have also got the vehicle valued by a valuer as is normally done by the Receiver before sale. In any event since in this case, the sale has been made by the financier and the entire consideration has been received by the financier and the delivery of the vehicle has been made by the financier, in my opinion, the same was a total nullity. In any event since in this case, the sale has been made by the financier and the entire consideration has been received by the financier and the delivery of the vehicle has been made by the financier, in my opinion, the same was a total nullity. The other documents on which the securities have been obtained are apparently not in conformity with the sale by Receiver and it is quite apparent to me that the Receiver could put signature on any document as was asked for by his employer. The signature by the Receiver to the document dated 22nd February, 1994, where he has said that I have declared owner of the said vehicle, is apparently incorrect because he was never declared the owner of the said vehicle. He has also stated in the said letter that he has sold this vehicle to Mr. N. G. Biman Singh of Mayurankhar, Dist.-Imphal. From his evidence as also the evidence of Mr. Mullick, an employee of the financier, it is amply proved that the company sold the vehicle and the entire purported consideration was received by the company and order for delivery of the vehicle was also issued by the company. This shows that the Receiver could put his initial for signature to any document he was asked for. 24. In the facts and circumstances of this case the delay in making the payments, by the hirer in terms of the order dated 19th April, 1993, is hereby condoned and it is recorded that the hirer has paid and caused to be paid to the financier a total sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-. It is declared that the hirer is entitled to the possession of the said vehicle and to ply the same for his own benefit. N. G. Biman Singh is restrained from giving effect to the registration of the said vehicle in his favour under registration No. MN-01/0648 and the said registration of the said vehicle in favour of N. G. Biman Singh is declared as nullity and it is also declared that said Biman Singh did not acquire any right title or interest in the said vehicle. Said Biman Singh will be entitled to the refund of the sum of Rs. 1,15,000/- from M/s. B. C. L. Financial Services Ltd. who are hereby directed to pay to Biman Singh the said sum of Rs. Said Biman Singh will be entitled to the refund of the sum of Rs. 1,15,000/- from M/s. B. C. L. Financial Services Ltd. who are hereby directed to pay to Biman Singh the said sum of Rs. 1,15,000/- with interest thereon @ 18% p. a. on and from 22nd February, 1994 within a fortnight from the date or delivery against prior delivery of the said vehicle to the petitioner, Nizamur Rahaman Khan by the said Biman Singh. The said Biman Singh is directed to deliver the said vehicle within a fortnight from the date of receipt of the signed copy or the operative portion of this order to Nizamur Rahaman Khan at Calcutta on prior three days' notice to the Advocate-an-Record of the said Nizamur Rahaman Khan. The said amount of Rs. 1,15,000/- is directed to be kept by the financier within a fortnight from the date of service, in separate savings account in a nationalised Bank, to be dealt with only in terms of this order. On and from the date of deposit in separate savings bank account the financier will not pay any further interest except the interest which will accrue in the savings account. On such deposit intimation will be given to all parties including Biman Singh through their Advocates. 25. The said Biman Singh is restrained from running the said vehicle or plying the said vehicle or from in any manner using the said vehicle except for the purpose of delivering the same to the said Nizamur Rahaman Khan. The said Biman Singh is also restrained from parting with possession of the said vehicle. 26. The Receiver Mr. Ashok Tewari is hereby discharged from further acting as Receiver in any manner whatsoever. Mr. Ranjit Kumar Basu, the Advocate-on-Record of the said Nizamur Rahaman Khan is appointed Receiver for the purpose of taking possession of the said vehicle and for making over the said vehicle to the said Nizamur Rahaman Khan. His remuneration will be fixed later on after the possession is obtained and made over to Nizamur Rahaman Khan. The receiver aforesaid will also be entitled to employ or appoint any agent for the purpose of taking possession of the said vehicle, and for giving effect to and carrying out this order. 27. His remuneration will be fixed later on after the possession is obtained and made over to Nizamur Rahaman Khan. The receiver aforesaid will also be entitled to employ or appoint any agent for the purpose of taking possession of the said vehicle, and for giving effect to and carrying out this order. 27. The appropriate registering authorities of Muzaffarpur are directed to register the said vehicle in the name of the said Nizamur Rahaman Khan, upon being asked to do so and restore the registration in the name of Nizamur Rahaman Khan as the registered owner. So far as the endorsement of hire purchase is concerned, the same may be continued until further orders of Court in favour of the financier subject to further orders of Court. 28. The purported sale purported to be made in favour of the said Biman Singh on 22nd February, 1994, in respect of the vehicle bearing registration No. BR-06M/4066 is hereby set aside and is declared as a nullity. The said new Receiver will be entitled to take possession of the vehicle with its present registration number which has been stated to be MM-01/0648 or with any other number as may be found to be on the said vehicle having the chassis number and the engine number as mentioned in the affidavit of Biman Singh affirmed on 8th November, 1994. 29. Since I am of the view that on and from 11th March, 1994 when the order for making over the possession was made the said Nizamur Rahaman Khan has wrongfully been deprived of the use and possession of the said vehicle by wrongful and illegal acts of M/s. B.C.L. Financial Services Ltd. The said B.C.L. Financial Services Ltd. is directed to pay damages to Nizamur Rahaman Khan to the extent of Rs. 500/- per day calculated on and from 12th March, 1994 until possession is received and/or recovered by the said Nizamur Rahaman Khan. On and from the date of expiry of the period of fortnight from the date of service of the signed copy of this order upon the Advocate-on-Record of Biman Singh, the said damages at the rate of Rupees 500/- per day will be payable by B.C.L. Financial Corporation and the said Biman Singh jointly and severally. On and from the date of expiry of the period of fortnight from the date of service of the signed copy of this order upon the Advocate-on-Record of Biman Singh, the said damages at the rate of Rupees 500/- per day will be payable by B.C.L. Financial Corporation and the said Biman Singh jointly and severally. Liberty is given to the parties to apply and to obtain further orders to give effect to this order or to pray for value in lieu of order for possession, in addition to the orders already made. 30. In view of the Terms of the Settlement and all disputes having been settled between the parties there is no question of any arbitration to proceed. In any manner whatsoever and the Arbitrator mentioned in the hire purchase agreement namely Sri Dipak Kumar Bhattacharjee or any other person named in the hire purchase agreement as Arbitrator is directed not to proceed with any arbitration whatsoever. 31. The said Biman Singh is also restrained from alienating and/or transferring or encumbering or from parting with possession of the said vehicle bearing registration No. BR-06M/4066 or the registration No. MN-01/0648 in any manner whatsoever except for the purpose of making over the same to Nizamur Rahaman Khan the petitioner herein. Both the applications made by Nizamur Rahaman Khan, are thus disposed of in terms of this order. 32. This order will, however, not prevent the financier from making an appropriate application if at all the financier is of the view that anything in addition to Rs. 1,50,000/- as provided in the Terms of Settlement is payable to him in accordance with the Terms of Settlement. He will be at liberty to make such appropriate application which will be decided as and when such claim is made by the financier, on the basis of such Terms of Settlement. So far as total sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as provided in the Terms of Settlement is concerned, the same has been paid and caused to be paid by Nizamur Rahaman Khan and the same will stand adjusted and/or treated in full payment of the amount of Rs. So far as total sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as provided in the Terms of Settlement is concerned, the same has been paid and caused to be paid by Nizamur Rahaman Khan and the same will stand adjusted and/or treated in full payment of the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- as mentioned in the Terms of Settlement and the time for payment thereof is extended upto the date of the last payment which was made on or about 11th March, 1994 and/or the date on which the proceeds of the cheque and/or the bank draft were collected by the financier. The financier will pay the costs of these applications assessed at 100 G.Ms to Nizamur Rahaman Khan. The parties will be entitled to execute this order as a decree. The new receiver will be entitled to obtain police help from the local police station where the vehicle is lying and/or is kept. 33. The parties will be at liberty to obtain a xerox certified copy of this judgment and order which may be issued expeditiously to the parties. 34. The stay of operation of this order has been prayed for on behalf of the said Biman Singh which is declined. The Registering Authorities of the different places namely Imphal and/or Muzaffarpur or any other places will act on the certified xerox copy of this judgment and order.