9911796707
TMI Blog1969 (9) TMI 5X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sum of Rs. 1,11,000. Another firm of Bombay, Messrs. Bhawani Prasad Girdhar Lal (hereinafter referred to as "the Bombay firm"), had a decree of a Bombay court against Sri Narain, about whom it was said that he was carrying on business in the name and style of Messrs. Raja Ram Sri Narain. This decree was transmitted to the Court of the 1st Civil Judge of Kanpur for execution. When the house was sold, the Bombay firm applied in the Court of the 1st Civil Judge for attachment of the balance of the sale proceeds after satisfaction of the decree in favour of the bank. On the 8th of September, 1961, a precept was received from the Court of the Ist Civil Judge attaching the balance of the sale proceeds for the satisfaction of the decretal amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision to this court. The first point argued by Mr. S. N. Kacker, learned counsel for the bank, was that the Income-tax Officer had no right to move the court under section 151, Civil Procedure Code. He has contended that the proper procedure was for the Collector to attach the sale proceeds by a notice to the court executing the decree under Order 21, rule 52, of the Code of Civil Procedure. The short answer to this argument is that an attachment had already been made of the house in the year 1955. That attachment was held to be valid right up to this court. The house was sold while that attachment subsisted as it undoubtedly could be sold under section 63 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The attachment however, made earlier would not ceas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ull Bench decision of the Madras High Court. The learned judges, however, distinguished that case on the ground that the application under section 151, of the Code of Civil Procedure, in the Madras Full Bench case had been filed by the Income-tax Officer and not by the Collector. That distinction exists in the present case also. The application under section 151, of the Code of Civil Procedure, was not made by the Collector but by the Income-tax Officer. The decision of the Divison Bench case of this court is authority only for the proposition that the Collector cannot move the court under section 151, but can proceed only under Order 21, rule 52, of the Code of Civil Procedure. I should also like to mention that in the Division Bench case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
