9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (2) TMI 77X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1968 on the file of the Sub-Court, Coimbatore, filed by the decree-holder to raise an attachment over the amount in court deposit, being the balance of the sale price of the property of the judgment-debtor sold in court auction. V. A. Ramaswami, the first respondent herein, filed O.S. No. 267 of 1968 on the file of the Sub-Court, Coimbatore, against G. R. Venkatesalu, now dead, and obtained a dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g, G. R. Venkatesalu died and his legal representatives were brought on record in E.A. No. 2543 of 1973. E.P.R. No. 627 of 1970 was filed by the decree-holder and an attachment of the property of the judgment-debtor was effected. Subsequently, the decree-holder filed E.A. No. 170 of 1972 for permission to bid and set off and obtained such permission on March 8, 1972. He bid at the auction held on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4, attached the amount in court deposit on the ground that the Government had priority over the amount for recovery of the tax arrears due from the tax defaulting judgment-debtor. Therefore, the decree-holder filed the application to set aside the attachment effected by the Tax Recovery Officer. The Tax Recovery Officer contended that in view of rule 2 read with rule 16 of the Second Schedule to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inst such property in execution of a decree for the payment of money. " Therefore, the order of attachment passed by the learned subordinate judge in execution of the decree in favour of the plaintiff in O.S. No. 267 of 1968, namely, V. A. Ramaswami, is not valid. Consequently, the sale in court auction itself is void as the order of attachment and subsequent orders have been passed by the court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
