Judgment:
The Court: The decree-holder is represented and the decree-holder says that in view of the settlement with the judgment debtor outside Court, the decree-holder has no further claim in respect of the decree.
The decree-holder does not wish to proceed any further with E.C.No.89 of 2009 and submits that satisfaction of the decree should be recorded. The judgment-debtors are also represented and they corroborate the statement made on behalf of the decree-holder. It is submitted on behalf of one of the shareholders of the decree-holder company that the entire settlement with the judgment-debtors is fraudulent since the decretal debt is in excess of Rs.11 crore but the decree-holder has settled for an undisclosed smaller at the behest of persons now in control of the decree-holder company.
One of the prospective purchasers, who had participated in the process following offers being invited for sale of some of the properties, also protested the settlement. In view of the decree-holder making an unequivocal settlement in Court that the decree-holder does not wish to pursue the execution and that the decree stands satisfied, the Court cannot take into account any complaints made by a prospective purchaser of a property that had been advertised for sale in execution or by a disgruntled shareholder of the decree holder company. E.C.No.89 of 2009 is disposed of by recording satisfaction of the decree.
It is made clear that this order will not preclude the shareholder from pursuing the challenge if the shareholder is otherwise entitled to the same in accordance with law. The receiver appointed in this matter shall stand discharged without being required to file any accounts since the receiver had not dealt with any funds.
The receiver should be paid a final remuneration of 600 GM by the decree-holder within a fortnight.
There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent certified photocopies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.