Judgment :- Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J. This matter has been placed before us pursuant to the decision of the Supreme Court dated April 28, 2010 by which the Supreme Court remitted the matter back to this Court to examine afresh the entire issue as to whether the Receiver had discharged his functions properly and complied with the directions. It was mentioned in the order of remand that if it appeared on fresh investigation that the Receiver had not complied with the directions of the Court, appropriate action should be initiated. The Apex Court further directed that this Court should take note of the fact that the Receiver had, at no time, converted the funds to his personal use, but had maintained it separately. Specific direction was given upon this Court to decide as to who is entitled to the disputed amount and to pass appropriate orders and if the appellants before the Supreme Court were found to be entitled to the same, they would be entitled to the same with interest up to the date of payment. This Court was directed to give full opportunity to the Receiver to explain his conduct and to decide the issue uninfluenced by the prima facie findings recorded by the Supreme Court in the said order. The facts giving rise to filing of the present application may be summed up thus: a) The appellant of this appeal filed a suit for specific performance of contract against the respondents. The suit was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in the year 1981 and the respondent filed an appeal against the dismissal of the suit before the Division Bench. b) During the pendency of the appeal, the plaintiff and the defendants arrived at a settlement and in terms of the said settlement, the suit was decreed on August 5, 1986. Under the terms of settlement, the defendants agreed to sell 90 kottahs of land to the plaintiff or his nominee at a price of Rs.10,000/- per kottah. c) Clauses 3, 6 and 7 of the terms of settlement which are relevant, are extracted below: “3. Under the terms of settlement, the defendants agreed to sell 90 kottahs of land to the plaintiff or his nominee at a price of Rs.10,000/- per kottah. c) Clauses 3, 6 and 7 of the terms of settlement which are relevant, are extracted below: “3. Immediately after the filing of these terms of settlement, the plaintiff shall pay to the defendants a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs only) in part payment of the consideration and the balance sum of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lacs only) shall be paid of the time of completion of the conveyance and if several deeds of conveyance are executed for the parts of portions of the said premises then and in that event the said amount of consideration shall be apportioned and such amount as apportioned shall be paid of the time of execution of each deed of conveyance after taking into account the advance payment of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs only) paid by the plaintiff. “6. After approval of the title by the plaintiff if the defendants fail to obtain a certificate under section 230A of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961 or fail to obtain also permission of the competent authority if required under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling Regulations) Act, 1976 as required then and in that event, Mr. Dip Narayan Mitssstra is appointed Receiver over and in respect of the said property without authority and without remuneration and is directed to execute a Deed of Conveyance and/or conveyance in favour of the plaintiff or his nominee as provided for under these terms of settlement. “7. Simultaneously with the execution of the Deed of Conveyance in accordance with these terms of settlement as hereinafter mentioned the plaintiff shall make over to the defendants or to the Receiver as the case may be the balance consideration money less any amount which may be paid or deducted by the plaintiff on account of municipal taxes and other outgoings in respect of the said property in accordance with these Terms of Settlement. In that event, the balance consideration is made over to the Receiver the same shall be made over by the Receiver to the defendants and upon such payment the Receiver shall stand discharged and filing of the account by the Receiver shall be dispensed with.” Pursuant to the clause (6) of the terms of settlement, a Receiver was appointed. In that event, the balance consideration is made over to the Receiver the same shall be made over by the Receiver to the defendants and upon such payment the Receiver shall stand discharged and filing of the account by the Receiver shall be dispensed with.” Pursuant to the clause (6) of the terms of settlement, a Receiver was appointed. In pursuance of the said settlement, after payment of Rs.3,00,000/- to the appellants, the balance sale consideration of Rs.6,00,000/- was deposited with the Receiver. d) By letters dated 7.10.1986, 11.12.1986 and 22.12.1986, the defendants informed the Receiver that pursuant to the consent decree, they had transferred the suit premises to eleven nominees of the plaintiff under different deeds of sale and gave the following instructions to the Receiver in regard to Rs.6,00,000/- deposited by the purchasers : “It has been agreed between us and Mr. Basant Kumar Almal that out of the said amount of Rs.6,00,000/- lying presently with you a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- will be paid to Park Services Pvt. Ltd. of 119, Park Street, Calcutta towards payment of the statutory liability and other outgoings in respect of the said premises and such payment shall be a full and effectual discharge of the payment to be made by you. Out of the balance sum of Rs.3,00,000/- you are requested to prepare three cheques of Rs.1,00,000/- each in the names of Almal Kumar Ghosh, Debabrata Ghosh and Subrata Ghosh respectively.” e) Accordingly, the learned Receiver paid Rs.3,00,000/- to the three defendants @ Rs.1,00,000/- and the Receiver issued certificate dated 2nd January, 1987 to the defendants wherein he confirmed the receipt of the instructions of the defendants as follows: “As advised and agreed, I have retained a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) for payment to Park Services Private Limited of No.119, Park Street, Calcutta on account of statutory liabilities and other outgoings in respect of premises No.8/2, Palm Avenue, Calcutta in terms of three letters dated 7th October, 1986 written by Sri Almal Kumar Ghosh, 11th December, 1986 written by Sri Debabrata Ghosh and 22nd December, 1986 written by Sri Subrata Ghosh to me.” f) It appears that the Receiver, however, did not pay the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the Park Services Pvt. Ltd. and out of the said sum, he paid a sum of Rs.1,08,341.64p. by cheque dated 13th January, 1987 to the Calcutta Municipal Corporation towards the property tax dues in respect of the premises and deposited the balance amount in a fixed deposit. g) On 6th December, 1998, the defendants wrote to the Receiver requesting for a statement of account and also information as to whether the Receiver had incurred any expenses in respect of statutory liabilities etc. on their behalf. The Receiver immediately gave reply on 28th December, 1998 informing the defendants that as on that date, as Receiver, he was holding a sum of Rs.5,29,717/- in fixed deposit towards the balance. h) Thereafter, the defendants wrote to the Receiver on 8th January, 1999 requesting for payment of the amount. The Receiver replied on January 21, 1999 stating that he would release the amount to the defendants on their obtaining ‘no objection certificate’ from Park Services Pvt. Ltd. The defendants did not furnish such ‘no objection certificate’ from Park Services Pvt. Ltd., but again wrote another letter dated 24th March, 2005 calling upon the Receiver to pay the amount that was held by him as Receiver. i) The Receiver sent a reply dated March 28, 2005 to the defendants stating that whatever amount that had been lying with him had been made over by him to M/s. R. L. Gaggar, Solicitor & Advocate, representing the purchasers of the said premises in compliance with Mr. Gaggar’s letter dated 1st August, 2002 and therefore, as far as he was concerned, the chapter was closed and stood discharged. It appears that the Receiver paid a sum of Rs.9,23,998.36p. which was the balance amount with interest accrued till that date to Mr. R.L. Gaggar on 23rd August, 2002. j) In such circumstances, the defendants filed an application before this Court seeking for a direction upon the Receiver to render accounts and make payments of the amounts due to them. A Division Bench of this Court after hearing the parties and the Receiver on 8th December, 2008 held that reference to Park Services Pvt. Ltd. in the defendants’ letters dated 7.10.1986, 11.12.1986 and 22.12.1986 was in discharge of the obligation of the defendants to the plaintiff in terms of the consent decree on account of municipal taxes and other outgoings and therefore, the application was liable to be dismissed. k) Being dissatisfied, the defendants filed a Special Leave Application and as indicated earlier, the Supreme Court has set aside the order passed by the Division Bench and directed this Court to decide the dispute afresh with further direction upon the plaintiff to deposit the entire amount of Rs.9,23,998.36p. which was received from the Receiver before this Court within one month from the date of passing of the order for being disbursed in accordance with the order that will be passed by this Court. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction given by Supreme Court, we invited both the plaintiff and defendants and also the learned Receiver to state their respective versions about the entitlement of the aforesaid amount of Rs.9,23,998.36p. now deposited with the Registrar, Original Side of this Court pursuant to the direction of the Supreme Court. The claim of the defendants may be summed up thus: a) Out of Rs.3,00,000/- agreed to be paid to Park Services Private Limited towards the payment of statutory liability and other outgoings, the learned Receiver having himself paid the municipal taxes direct to the Kolkata Municipal Corporation and no amount having been handed over to the Park Services Private Limited, the balance amount after payment of Rs.1,08,341.64p. towards corporation taxes should be returned to the sellers/defendants along with interest. The defendants, thus, prayed for interest on the aforesaid amount @18% per annum from the date of handing over the amount which came to Rs.1,28,73,000/- according to their calculation as shown in the chart annexed to their claim. The plaintiff, on the other hand, put forward the following claims: a) Pursuant to the decree dated 18th January, 1982 and in terms of settlement, it was obligatory on the part of the defendants to discharge various liabilities. In terms of the said decree, any amount disbursed and/or paid on their behalf in respect of premises No.8/2, Palm Avenue, Kolkata, was to be adjusted and appropriated out of the money held by the learned Receiver in terms of the said decree. b) In terms of settlement, it was obligatory on the part of the defendants: (i) to make out a marketable title, free from all encumbrances and charges in respect of the said premises. (ii) to make payment of the amount due and payable to Kolkata Municipal Corporation. (iii) to settle the claim of Mr. A. N. Mitter (Mr. b) In terms of settlement, it was obligatory on the part of the defendants: (i) to make out a marketable title, free from all encumbrances and charges in respect of the said premises. (ii) to make payment of the amount due and payable to Kolkata Municipal Corporation. (iii) to settle the claim of Mr. A. N. Mitter (Mr. Mitter) of Miter & Co., Advocates in terms of the said decree dated 18th January, 1982. c) The said terms of settlement expressly provided that in the event of the defendants failing to make payment of the amount to be contributed by them, the same would be adjusted and appropriated out of the money held by the learned Receiver. d) In terms of the decree, total amount of consideration for sale and transfer of the premises was initially agreed at Rs.9,00,000/-subject to the deductions, obligations, liabilities of the appellants in terms of transaction. Out of the total consideration, a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- had been paid to the three defendants on signing of the terms of settlement leaving a balance sum of Rs.6,00,000/-. Out of the said balance amount, the defendants were obliged to have made payment of the amounts due and payable to Mr. Mitter and also to make payment of arrears on account of municipal rates and taxes payable in respect of the said premises. The defendants from time to time instructed the plaintiff to make payment and incur expenses on their account and categorically confirmed that such amount would be treated by defendants as advance to be adjusted against the balance consideration money receivable by them under the decree. By letter dated 3rd May, 1984, the defendants confirmed that plaintiff had been entitled to adjust and authorize to appropriate all amount advanced and incurred by the defendants as also further expenses which the plaintiff may have to incur on their behalf in terms of settlement. e) Out of balance amount of Rs.6,00,000/-, a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- i.e. Rs.1,00,000/- had been paid to each of the defendants on 8th October, 1986, 11th December, 1986 and 22nd December, 1986 respectively against receipts in full and final settlement of their respective dues leaving a balance sum of Rs.3,00,000/-and this was lying with the learned Receiver so that the amount to be paid or discharged by the defendants could be paid out of the balance amount of Rs.3,00,000/-. f) It was obligatory on the part of the defendants to recover title deeds and all cause papers from Mitter & Co., their Solicitors of which late Anilendra Nath Mitter was the dealing Advocate and also to discharge the amount which was due and payable by them on account of arrears of municipal rates and taxes payable in respect of the said premises. g) At the request of the defendants, the plaintiff had lodged a complaint with the Bar Council of West Bengal and ultimately, Mr. S. B. Mukherjee, Bar-at-Law and senior Advocate, intervened in the matter and the plaintiff agreed to settle the claim of Mr. A. N. Mitter of Mitter & Co. h) After several mediation meetings, Mr. S. B. Mukherjee settled the claim of late Anilendra Nath Mitter at a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-which Mr. Mitter accepted in full and final settlement of all his claims against the defendants. The copy of such agreement which had been arrived at by the plaintiff with Mr. A. N. Mitter was annexed. The defendants derived substantial advantage and benefit under the said agreement and was obliged to compensate the plaintiff for the sums paid on their account and behalf. i) The defendants, accordingly, executed a separate Power of Attorney in favour of Park Services Pvt. Ltd. of which the plaintiff was a Director as well as in favour of plaintiff and two other co-purchasers authorizing them to manage the property to issue and incur expenses relating to such property on account of the defendants. The copies of such Power of Attorney instruments were annexed to the affidavit. j) The plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to the balance amount which was paid by the learned Receiver to him and which has been re-deposited with the Registrar, Original Side pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court. The learned Receiver by a separate affidavit has supported the claim of the plaintiff and has strongly relied upon the letter written by the defendants dated 7th October, 1986 to the learned Receiver which was written immediately after the agreement was entered into between Mr. Mitter and the plaintiff. On consideration of the aforesaid claim and counter-claim, we find that there is no dispute that Mr. Anilendra Nath Mitter, the Solicitor of the plaintiff was related to the three defendants as would appear from the materials on record. There was in the past litigation initiated by Mr. Mitter and the plaintiff. On consideration of the aforesaid claim and counter-claim, we find that there is no dispute that Mr. Anilendra Nath Mitter, the Solicitor of the plaintiff was related to the three defendants as would appear from the materials on record. There was in the past litigation initiated by Mr. Mitter against both the plaintiff and the defendants in the 2nd Court of Sub-ordinate Judge, Alipore, being title suit No.119 of 1982 thereby praying for declaration that decree dated 18th January, 1982 was null and void and not binding upon Mr. Mitter and for direction upon the defendants to release and relinquish of their right, title and interest in respect of some of the portions of the 8/2, Palm Avenue upon payment of Rs.5,00,000/- and for registration of document for that purpose. However, there was Memorandum of Understanding between Mr. Mitter and the plaintiff by which it was agreed that the plaintiff should make payment to Mr. Mitter a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards costs and expenses incurred by Mr. Mitter in initiating various actions, proceedings and litigations and out of the said sum of Rs.3,00,000/-, a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- should be paid to Mr. Mitter out of the money lying deposited with the Receiver appointed in the High Court suit after withdrawal of all proceedings initiated by Mr. Mitter as aforesaid and it should be the responsibility of the plaintiff that Mr. Mitter got the sum of Rs.2,50,000/- lying deposited with the Receiver. The balance sum of Rs.50,000/- being the in pocket costs should be paid by the plaintiff by a pay order drawn in favour of Mr. A. N. Mitter simultaneously with the withdrawal of the said proceedings filed by Mr. Mitter. Although the defendants were not party to such understanding, by letter dated 7th October, 1986, the defendants have agreed to accept the said agreement as would appear from their letter above letter dated 7th October, 1986, which is quoted below: “From : AMAL KUMAR GHOSH 43A, Block ‘C’ SUBRATO GHOSH New Alipore DEBABRATA GHOSH Calcutta- 53 Date : 7.10.86. Sri Dip Narayan Mittra, Advocate, 6, Old Post Office Street, Calcutta-1. Dear Sir, Re : Appeal No. 453 of 1981 Suit No. 609 of 1980 Premises No.8/2, Palm Avenue, Calcutta. Sri Dip Narayan Mittra, Advocate, 6, Old Post Office Street, Calcutta-1. Dear Sir, Re : Appeal No. 453 of 1981 Suit No. 609 of 1980 Premises No.8/2, Palm Avenue, Calcutta. In response to the consent decree passed in the above suit, you being the Receiver appointed by the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta have transferred the above premises by 11 several deeds of conveyances in favour of the following persons : - S. No. Name Address 1 Bijay Kumar Almal 4, Gurusaday Road, Calcutta-19 2. Ramesh Kumar Alaml -do- 3. Almal Seva Trust -do- 4. Sureka Foundation 3/1, Loudon Street, Calcutta-19 5. Beeton Commerce Pvt. Ltd. 25B, Park Street, Calcutta. 6. Hemant Kumar Almal 4, Gurusaday Road, Calcutta-19 7. Sureka Estate Ltd. 3/1, Loudon Street, Calcutta-19 8. Bishwambar Dayal Sureka (HUF) -do- 9. J. J. Amalgamation Private Ltd. 3, Loudon Street, Calcutta. 10. Kohinoor Investment Ltd. 14, Netaji Subhas Road, Calcutta. 11. Basant Kumar Almal 4, Gurusaday Road, Calcutta. In terms of the said decree the said purchasers have already deposited with you a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lacs) only. It has been agreed between us and Mr. Basant Kumar Almal that out of the said amount of Rs.6,00,000/- lying presently with you a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- will be paid to Park Services Pvt. Ltd. of 119, Park Street, Calcutta towards payment of the statutory liability and other outgoings in respect of the said premises and such payment shall be a full and effectual discharge of the payment to be made by you. Out of the balance sum of Rs.3,00,000/- you are requested to prepare three cheques of Rs.1,00,000/- each in the names of Amal Kumar Ghosh, Debabrata Ghosh and Subrata Ghosh respectively. Yours faithfully, For Amal Kumar Ghosh & Others.” Before us, Mr. Kishore Dutt, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the defendants, did not dispute that his clients had written such letter. From the said letter, it is clear that a specific sum of Rs.3,00,000/- was payable to Park Services Pvt. Ltd. towards payment of the statutory liability and “other outgoings in respect of the said premises” in question. It was further specified that such payment should be a full and effectual discharge of the payment to be made by the Receiver and that the defendants would be satisfied with Rs.3,00,000/-. It was further specified that such payment should be a full and effectual discharge of the payment to be made by the Receiver and that the defendants would be satisfied with Rs.3,00,000/-. We have already pointed out that the plaintiff is the Director of the said Park Services Pvt. Ltd. and the said specified sum of Rs.3,00,000/- was payable to the plaintiff for the payment made by him pursuant to the agreement with A. N. Mitter and if that agreement was not entered into, the transaction pursuant to the consent decree could not take place immediately. It appears that the learned Receiver instead of making payment of Rs.3,00,000/- to Park Services Pvt. Ltd., himself made payment of corporation tax and the balance amount was kept in fixed deposit in separate account. When Mr. R. L. Gaggar, the learned Solicitor for the plaintiff claimed that amount on behalf of the Park Services Pvt. Ltd., the learned Receiver paid that amount to him along with the interest that accrued on such deposit. Thus, the aforesaid sum of Rs.3,00,000/- was really payable to the plaintiff and the defendants even wrote a letter affirming such fact which we have quoted and the defendants agreed to be satisfied with Rs.3,00,000/- (one lakh each) out of six lakh and having given specific instruction to the Receiver to make such payment in writing, no further amount is payable to them out of the balance amount. It is apparent that the sum of Rs.3 lakh was payable to Park Service Pvt. Ltd on the basis of agreement to compensate the amount spent by the plaintiff on behalf of the defendants not only for the corporation tax but also for the other expenditure made by the plaintiff for discharging the various obligations of the defendants. It was not the case of the defendants that a sum of Rs.3 lakh was due and payable towards corporation tax. The defendants have also not explained the purpose of their agreeing to make payment of a specific sum of Rs.3 lakh to the Park Service Pvt. Ltd. nor have they given details of the “other outgoings in respect of the said premises” as indicated in their letter to the learned Receiver as quoted by us. The defendants have also not explained the purpose of their agreeing to make payment of a specific sum of Rs.3 lakh to the Park Service Pvt. Ltd. nor have they given details of the “other outgoings in respect of the said premises” as indicated in their letter to the learned Receiver as quoted by us. We, therefore, hold that the amount which has been re-deposited by the plaintiff pursuant to the order of Supreme Court should be again paid back to him as he is really entitled to the said amount and the defendants have no right over that amount. The claim made by the defendants is a frivolous one. We make it clear that the learned Receiver has performed his duty in accordance with the consent decree and the subsequent agreement entered into among the parties and thus, there is no dereliction of duty of the learned Receiver. We, thus, dispose of this application by directing the Registrar, Original Side, to release the amount with all interest accrued thereon in favour of the plaintiff after two months from today and not later than three months. The application is, thus, disposed of with costs payable by the defendants jointly to both the learned Receiver and the plaintiff at the rate of Rs.50,000/- each.