9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Whether Provident Fund money is liable to attachment under execution proceedings. Analysis: The judgment deals with the issue of whether Provident Fund money is subject to attachment under execution proceedings. The decree-holder sought to attach a sum of money deposited under the head Deposit Miscellaneous 'E' in the name of the judgment-debtor, which was claimed to be Provident Fund money. The contention was based on the argument that the character of the Provident Fund had changed due to certain circumstances. It was highlighted that attempts were made by the Railway to pay the amount to the decree-holder, but the money remained with the Railway and was never received by the judgment-debtor. The decree-holder argued that the Provident Fund had lost its character, making it liable to attachment. However, the court disagreed with this argument, emphasizing that the money still resided in the Provident Fund account and had not been paid out to the subscriber. The judgment delves into the legal aspects governing Provident Funds, citing the Provident Funds Act and relevant sections of the Civil Procedure Code. Section 2(a) of the Provident Funds Act defines compulsory deposit as a subscription to or deposit in a Provident Fund. The court noted that as long as the money remained in the Provident Fund account, it retained its character as compulsory deposit. Section 3 of the Act explicitly states that Provident Fund money is not liable to attachment. The court interpreted this provision to mean that the mere transfer of funds within the Railway administration did not change the nature of the Provident Fund. Additionally, Section 60(k) of the Civil Procedure Code grants immunity to Provident Fund money from attachment if derived from a fund covered by the Provident Funds Act. The judgment also considered the evidence presented by both parties, highlighting that the decree-holder's evidence was largely hearsay, while the Railway's Deputy Financial Adviser provided a satisfactory explanation regarding the nature of the Miscellaneous Account. Ultimately, the court concluded that the sum of money in question, representing the Provident Fund of the judgment-debtor, was not liable to attachment. The application for attachment was dismissed, and no costs were awarded. The decision was based on a thorough analysis of the relevant legal provisions and factual circumstances surrounding the Provident Fund money, affirming its immunity from attachment under the law.
|
