9911796707
TMI Blog1955 (4) TMI 55X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and payment of the same to the decree-holder. It is said in column 10 of the Tabular Statement that the amount lying is ₹ 7,381/13/-. The decree was dated 13-3-1947. It is Unnecessary to go into the records of the long history of unsuccessful attempts at realising this decree. The Judgment-debtor Gregory was a driver under the Railway Administration. I understand he has resigned or retired and is now in Scotland. 2. This sum of money arises out of his Provident Fund with the Railway. 3. Mr. Lahiri who appears for the decree-holder contended that this money was liable to attachment because it had shed its character as Provident Fund by reason of certain facts. Those facts may briefly be stated. On 30-8-1949, it to said that a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Bank of India Ltd. v. M.V. V. Rao', AIR 1949 Cal 144 (A). That case, however, is of no assistance to Mr. Lahiri because there the Railway Company had actually issued and delivered to the subscriber a cheque for the Provident Fund amount which became payable to him on his retirement from service. The cheque was in fact in currency because he had endorsed it. Therefore, it was held there that the decree-holder could attach that debt under Order 21, Rule 46. Here this sum of money represents the amount of the Provident Fund of the judgment-debtor Gregory and never left the Railway administration. He never received it in any shape or form nor did he negotiate it in any form. All that the Railway has done is to transfer it from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e current or open Account is placed with the closed account which is Miscellaneous Account 'E'. On the merits, therefore, I am entirey unable to accept Mr. Lahiri's contention that in the facts of this case the Provident Fund has been converted or has changed its character as Provident Fund so as to become liable to attachment. 5. It will be proper to refer to the Provident Funds Act and to the relevant sections of the Civil Procedure Code. Now Section 2(a) of the Provident Funds Act, 1925 defines compulsory deposit as meaning a subscription to or deposit in a Provident Fund which under the Rules of the Fund is not until the happening of some specified contingency, repayable on demand otherwise than for purposes mentioned the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Fund from attachment says: All compulsory deposits and other sums in or derived from any fund to which the Provident Funds Act, 1925, for the time being applies in so far as they are declared by the said Act not to be liable to attachment. This provision clearly indicates that where the compulsory deposit or any other sum is a sum in or derived from any fund to which the Provident Funds Act applies , it is immune from attachment. Here again, it does not stipulate that the sum has to remain in a particular account. A deposit which is derived from the fund, or a sum which is derived from the fund to which the Provident Funds Act applies is enough. It is clear that the Miscellaneous Account 'E' in which the present sum of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
