1902 (5) TMI 1

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pect of property attached by him previous to the passing of the vesting order, but the distinction is not of much importance. 3. The reference has arisen from a difference of opinion in the case of J. B. Miller v. Lukhlmani Debi (1901) I. L. R, 28 Calc. 419, on the one hand, and of Soobul Chunder Law v. Bussik Latt Miller (1888) I. L. R. 15 Calc. 202, on the other. 4. It is worthy of immediate notice that the latter case was not brought to the attention of the Court which decided the case of A. B. Miller v. Lukhimani Bebi (1888) I. L. R. 15 Calc. 202, to which decision I was a party. 5. It seems to me that the first question we have to consider is whether the judgment-creditor, who had attached his debtor' .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is different from what it was, when the Full Bench case of Anand Chandra Pal v. Panchilal Sarma (1870) 5 B. L. R. 691, was decided. There is a marked distinction between the language of Section 270 of the Code of 1859 and Section 295 of the present Code, which governs the present case. 8. Under Section 270 of the Code of 1859 a creditor obtaining an attachment, was entitled to be first paid out of the proceeds of the sale, notwithstanding a subsequent attachment of the same property by any party in execution of his decree, but Section 295 of the present Code points to a rateable distribution of the proceeds of sale under a decree in certain events and under certain circumstances. 9. If, then, the attaching creditor had o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... has been repealed and it has been re-enacted in an entirely different form in Section 295 of the present Code. Under Section 295 all decree-holders, who have applied for execution of their decrees for money against the same judgment-debtor before the realisation of assets from him, are entitled to rateable distribution. If the judgment-creditor in the present case be allowed to execute his decree in spite of the opposition of the Official Assignee, who represents him and all the other creditors, only those creditors, the may have obtained decrees, will be entitled to rateable participation with aim in monies realised, and the object for which the Official Assignee has been appointed will be frustrated. 12. I agree in the judgment .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X