9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Appointment of a receiver for provident fund money in execution of a decree. 2. Attachment and execution against arrears of salary and allowances. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Appointment of a Receiver for Provident Fund Money in Execution of a Decree: The main question addressed was whether a receiver could be appointed in execution in respect of provident fund money due to the judgment-debtor. The judgment emphasized that "compulsory deposit and other sums in or derived from any fund to which the Provident Funds Act XIX of 1925 applies are exempt from attachment and sale under section 60 (k), Civil Procedure Code." The definition of "compulsory deposit" under section 2 (a) of the Provident Funds Act XIX of 1925 was cited, which includes any contribution, interest, or increment accrued under the rules of the fund. The judgment underscored that such deposits cannot be assigned, charged, or attached, as per Section 3 (1) of the Provident Funds Act, which states: "A compulsory deposit in any Government or Railway Provident Fund shall not in any way be capable of being assigned or charged and shall not be liable to attachment under any decree or order of any Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court in respect of any debt or liability incurred by the subscriber or depositor." This prohibition is based on public policy to ensure that funds meant for future security cannot be diverted to satisfy debts. The judgment referenced the case of Lucas v. Harris (18 Q.B.D. 127), where it was established that appointing a receiver to collect a pension would defeat the object of the statute, which intended to make such pensions inalienable. The judgment further clarified that Section 51 of the Civil Procedure Code, which recognizes the appointment of a receiver as a mode of execution, does not apply to provident fund money due to its exemption from attachment and inalienability. The judgment also examined the Privy Council decision in Rajindra Narain Singh v. Sundara Bibi (1925) 52 I.A. 262), which had caused some confusion. It was clarified that this decision did not establish a general principle allowing the appointment of a receiver for property exempt from attachment. The judgment concluded that the Provident Fund money is exempt from execution by the appointment of a receiver. 2. Attachment and Execution Against Arrears of Salary and Allowances: The judgment distinguished between provident fund money and arrears of salary and allowances. It was noted that "Salary is not attachable to the extent provided in Section 60, clause (1), Civil Procedure Code, but there is no such exemption as regards arrears of salary." The learned Attorney-General conceded that arrears of salary could be proceeded against in execution. The judgment concluded that while the Provident Fund amount was protected from execution, the arrears of salary and allowances due to the judgment-debtor could be attached and executed. The appeal was allowed, and the order appointing a receiver for the Provident Fund amount was set aside. The Government was directed to pay the 1st respondent's costs of the appeal. Conclusion: The judgment clarified that provident fund money is exempt from attachment and execution, including through the appointment of a receiver, due to statutory provisions and public policy considerations. However, arrears of salary and allowances do not enjoy the same exemption and can be subject to execution. The appeal was allowed, and the lower court's order appointing a receiver for the Provident Fund amount was set aside.
|
