SOUMITRA SEN, J. ( 1 ) THIS application has been taken out by Industrial Reconstruction Bank of India (IRBI) with the following prayers :" (a) The order dated September 22, 1999, as modified by the order dated September 28, 1999, passed by honourable Justice Ruma Pal and honourable Justice S. N. Bhattacharjee be clarified as to whether the sum of Rs. 56 lakhs is to be returned by respondent No. 1 to Sri Jatan Surana or to J. L. Securities Pvt. Ltd. (now known as Surana Chain Manufacturing Industries Pvt. Ltd.) and to Jatanlal Gaurav Kumar Surana (HUF) being the nominees of Sri Jatan Surana. (b) Sri Jatan Surana and his nominees be directed to return the original conveyances dated December 7, 1998 and December 8, 1998, to the Industrial Investment Bank of India Ltd ; (c) Sri Jatan Surana and/or his nominees be directed to hand over the possession of all the movable and immovable properties to the learned receiver as per the valuation report and the inventory list of the said assets prepared by Mr. D. L. Vaishya Survayor and valuer, being annexure L hereto ; (d) Another suitable person be appointed as receiver in place and instead of Sri Protik Prokash Banerjee, if Sri Banerjee is not willing to continue as receiver any further ; (e) Ad interim orders in terms of prayers (a), (b) and (c) above ; (f) Costs of and incidental to this application ; (g) Such other or further order or orders as to this honourable court may deem fit and proper. " ( 2 ) THE facts of the case briefly are as follows : dwarka Industrial Development Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Dwarka) were lessees in respect of the premises No. 14a, Canal Street, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as the said premises) and a factory at Sonarpur. The owners of the premises are Nigom Brothers. The said Dwarka owed sums of money to Industrial Reconstruction Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the IRBI ). The Nigom Brothers had granted long lease for a period of 99 years commencing from October 1, 1963. ( 3 ) THE land and building and the machineries situated in the said premises and the factory were mortgaged to the IRBI and a charge was created in favour of the Indian Bank in respect of the current assets. The Nigom Brothers had granted long lease for a period of 99 years commencing from October 1, 1963. ( 3 ) THE land and building and the machineries situated in the said premises and the factory were mortgaged to the IRBI and a charge was created in favour of the Indian Bank in respect of the current assets. On February 4, 1997, the IRBI filed an application for sale of the assets mortgaged. That application was filed under Section 40 of the Industrial Reconstruction Bank of India Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ). In that application, the Indian Bank was impleaded as a party. Thereafter, the Indian Bank had also filed proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal for realisation of its outstanding dues. During the pendency of the said application, under Section 40 of the said Act by the IRBI, the workmen of Dwarka filed an application, inter alia, seeking a direction that the assets of Dwarka be sold to one Mr. Jatan Surana (hereinafter referred to as "surana") or his nominee for a sum of Rs. 65 lakhs and out of that a sum of Rs. 26 lakhs be paid to them towards their dues. ( 4 ) THE said application was adjourned from time to time and during the pendency of the said application the workmen filed another application, inter alia, praying that their earlier application be taken up for expeditious hearing and that the property be sold to Surana for a sum of Rs. 82 lakhs out of which a sum of Rs. 26 lakhs be paid to them and the rest be paid to the IRBI. The said application was taken up for hearing along with the earlier application filed by the workers and the application filed by the IRBI and on October 8, 1998, an order for sale of the assets of the properties was passed in favour of Surana at the said sum of Rs. 82 lakhs out of which Rs. 26 lakhs were to be paid to the workers and the balance amount of Rs. 56 lakhs were to be paid to IRBI. ( 5 ) IMMEDIATELY thereafter, Jatan Surana paid the said sum of Rs. 56 lakhs to IRBI he also paid a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs to the workers. 82 lakhs out of which Rs. 26 lakhs were to be paid to the workers and the balance amount of Rs. 56 lakhs were to be paid to IRBI. ( 5 ) IMMEDIATELY thereafter, Jatan Surana paid the said sum of Rs. 56 lakhs to IRBI he also paid a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs to the workers. On 7th and 8th December, 1998, the receiver executed two conveyances in favour of two nominees of Surana, even though in terms of the order Rs. 11 lakhs was still to be paid by Surana. The said sum was deposited with the court after the conveyance was executed. One Prerna Rex who claimed to be a tenant to the property opposed the taking over of the possession by Surana. ( 6 ) ON February 1, 1999, Prerna Rex wrote to Surana that he was a tenant of the said premises. However, on February 5, 1999, the matter was mentioned by the receiver and on the oral prayer made by the receiver an order dated February 5, 1999, was passed modifying ,the earlier order dated October 8, 1998, inter alia, giving liberty to the receiver to take police help for taking physical possession of the said property. ( 7 ) AGAINST the order of sale and subsequent orders two appeals were filed--one by Prerna and other by Indian Bank. Both the two appeals were filed from one single judgment dated September 22, 1999, then by a Division Bench of the honourable court, hearing that appeal was pleased to set aside the sale and further gave the following directions :"1. The conveyance dated December 8, 1998, executed between the receiver and Surana is cancelled. 2. IRBI will refund the amount of Rs. 56 lakhs to Surana within a fortnight from date ; 3. The workers shall refund the amount of Rs. 15 lakhs paid to them by Surana within a fortnight from date ; 4. The Registrar, original side will hand over the sum of Rs. 11 lakhs deposited with him by Surana together with accumulated interest thereon less the poundage if any within a fortnight from date ; 5. IRBI may proceed with its application under Section 40 of the Act according to the norms laid down in this judgment; 6. The receiver will hand over possession of the three rooms in question to Prerna within 24 hours. IRBI may proceed with its application under Section 40 of the Act according to the norms laid down in this judgment; 6. The receiver will hand over possession of the three rooms in question to Prerna within 24 hours. The receiver will remain in symbolical possession of the premises in terms of the order dated February 20, 1997, until the disposal of IRBI's application under Section 40. "against the said judgment of the Division Bench dated September 22, 1999, appeals were preferred before the honourable Supreme Court of India. The honourable Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and observed that there was no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Division Bench whereby the sale was set aside. The honourable Supreme Court also observed that the directions given by the Division Bench must follow the setting aside of sale. It was also clarified by the honourable Supreme Court that the conveyance executed by the receiver stands cancelled. The honourable Supreme Court also directed that the application filed under Section 40 filed by the IRBI should be disposed of on the merits and in accordance with law. It was also directed that a proper valuation should be first obtained and then the sale, if any, will only be held on public auction and after giving proper notices in prominent newspapers. ( 8 ) IT has been submitted on behalf of the IRBI that in terms of another order dated September 28, 1999, passed by the Division Bench the return of money to Surana was made subject to return of the title deeds to the premises. It is being contended before us that the title deeds as mentioned in the order dated September 28, 1999, would mean and include the title deeds executed by the receiver in favour of Surana. ( 9 ) IT is on record that Surana has returned the original title deeds of the property to the learned receiver but did not hand over the conveyance executed by the receiver in favour of the nominees of Surana. ( 10 ) THE sale has been set aside by the Division Bench of this honourable court and the judgment setting aside the sale has thereafter been upheld by the Honourable Supreme Court. The directions given by the Division Bench in the judgment dated September 22, 1999, have also been held to be perfectly justified. ( 10 ) THE sale has been set aside by the Division Bench of this honourable court and the judgment setting aside the sale has thereafter been upheld by the Honourable Supreme Court. The directions given by the Division Bench in the judgment dated September 22, 1999, have also been held to be perfectly justified. The Honourable Supreme Court in its judgment has categorically held that the conveyance executed by the receiver stands cancelled. Therefore, it is immaterial whether those conveyances are handed over or not, as the same are non est in the eye of law. ( 11 ) WITH regard to the other clarification whether the sum of Rs. 56 lakhs is to be returned to Surana or to J. L. Securities Private Ltd. and Jatanlal Gourav Kumar being the nominees of Surana, we are of the opinion that since the directions of the Division Bench directing refund of amount to Surana has been fully upheld by the honourable Supreme Court, the orders of the Division Bench have therefore merged in the order of the honourable Supreme Court. Thereafter, the orders of the Division Bench cannot be clarified. ( 12 ) NONE of the parties had sought any modifications before the honourable Supreme Court with regard thereto. Accordingly, the direction given by the Division Bench in the judgment dated September 28, 1999, should be complied with. ( 13 ) WE kept the matter pending before us in order to ensure that the receiver takes possession of the property. ( 14 ) PURSUANT to orders passed by us, the receiver has taken possession of the property in question. ( 15 ) THE main application under Section 40 is pending before the appropriate court. The parties will be at liberty to mention and pray before the appropriate court for an early hearing of the matter. ( 16 ) THE appropriate court may proceed with the matter in accordance with law and in the light of the observation of the Honourable Supreme Court.