9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Attachment of money in deposit. 2. Preferential claim of the decree-holder. 3. Validity of garnishee proceedings. 4. Requirement of leave from the Allahabad High Court. 5. Allegations of trickery by the Bank. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Attachment of Money in Deposit: The seven appeals arise from analogous execution cases initiated by the Maharaja of Darbhanga against the same judgment debtors. A sum of Rs. 1,25,000 was deposited in the Benares Bank in the name of the deceased wife of one of the judgment debtors, Kuleshwar Singh. The decree-holder alleged that the money belonged to Kuleshwar Singh and sought its attachment, which was allowed and effected on September 15, 1937. The Bank objected, claiming the money did not belong to the judgment debtor, leading to the withdrawal of the attachment by the Subordinate Judge on February 22, 1938. The High Court later restored the attachment and directed garnishee proceedings under Order XXI, Rule 63C of the Civil Procedure Code. 2. Preferential Claim of the Decree-Holder: The decree-holder contended that the attachment and subsequent court orders to deposit the money in court gave him a preferential claim over other creditors. However, the court held that the attachment under Order XXI, Rule 46 did not confer any higher right than the judgment debtor had against the Bank. The decree-holder stood in the shoes of the judgment debtor, who could not claim preference over other creditors. The court emphasized that the attachment did not improve the decree-holder's position, and he remained an unsecured creditor. Consequently, the decree-holder must take pro rata and await the winding-up proceedings, as per Section 229 of the Companies Act. 3. Validity of Garnishee Proceedings: The decree-holder argued that the Bank should be compelled to deposit the attached money in court. The court clarified that under Order XXI, Rule 46(3), the debtor (Bank) had the option to pay the amount into court, but there was no provision authorizing the court to compel the debtor to do so. The decree-holder's application for an order under Rule 63B(1) to compel the Bank to deposit the money was made after the Bank had gone into liquidation. Therefore, no valid order existed before the liquidation that could compel the Bank to deposit the money. 4. Requirement of Leave from the Allahabad High Court: The decree-holder obtained leave from the Allahabad High Court on April 26, 1940, to proceed against the Official Liquidator. However, the court noted that this leave was granted to "proceed with" the pending execution cases and not specifically to levy execution against the Bank. The leave did not authorize execution against the Bank, and the decree-holder needed to obtain a garnishee order before proceeding with execution. The learned Subordinate Judge's decision that further leave was necessary to proceed in execution was upheld. 5. Allegations of Trickery by the Bank: The decree-holder alleged that the Bank's actions delayed the realization of the money and amounted to trickery. The court examined the facts and found no evidence of fraud or trickery by the Bank. The Bank's objections were justified, given the depositor's death and the pending claim case filed by the daughters-in-law of the deceased depositor. The complications in the Bank's affairs and the subsequent winding-up proceedings were not due to any fraudulent actions by the Bank. The court concluded that the Bank could not be charged with fraud, and the decree-holder's contentions on this ground failed. Conclusion: All the contentions raised by the appellant (decree-holder) were dismissed. The appeals were dismissed with costs, and the decree-holder was directed to proceed according to the provisions of the Companies Act, taking pro rata and awaiting the winding-up proceedings.
|
