LexTHE UNION OF INDIA versus HIRA DEVI AND ANOTHER.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
r ) -· ) . - .. '· S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 765 PATANJALI SAsTRr J.-I concur in the order propos- ed by my learned brother Chandrasekhara Aiyar J. DAs J.-In view of the ma=ority decision in Case No. 22 of 1950 (The State of Bombay v. Atma Ram Sridhar Acharya), I concur in the order proposed by my learned brother. Order accordingly. Petition No. 194 of 1950 Agent for the petitioner : R. R. Biswas. Agent for the respondent: P. A. Mehta. Agent for the intervener : P. A. Mehta. Petition No. 167 of 1950 Agent for the petition: R. S. Narula. Agent for the respondent : P. A. Mehta. THE UNION OF INDIA v. HIRA DEVI AND ANOTHER. [MEHER CHAND MAHAJAN, CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR and BosE, JJ.] Civil Procedure code, 1908, s. 60 (k)-Provident Funds Act (XIX of 1925), ss. 2 (a), 3 (1)-Compulsory deposit in Provident Fund-Exemption from attachment-Appointment of receiver- Legality. A receiver cannot be appointed in execution of a decree in respect of a compulsory deposit in a Provident Fund due to the judgment debtor. Whatever doubts may have existed under the earlier Act of 1897, the definition of "compulsory deposit" in s. 2 (a) of the Provident Funds Act (XIX of 1925) clearly includes deposits remaining to the credit of the subscriber or depositor after he has retired from service. Arrears of salary and allowances stand upon a different footing and are not exempt from being proceeded against in execution. CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 132 of 1951. Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Decree dated 17th May, 1950, of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta (Harries C.J. and Sinha J.) in Appeal No. 41 of 1950 arising out of the Order of 1951 Ujagar Singh v. The State of Punjab. Chandra- sekhara Aiyar /. 1952 May 21. The Union of India v. Hira Devi and Another. -·- Chandra- . sekhara Aiyar /. 766 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1952] Banerjee J. dated 19th December, 1949, in Suit No. 1132 of 1948. M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India (B. ·Sen, with him) for the appellant. Naziruddin Ahmad (Numddin Ahmad, with him) for respondent No. I. S. N. Mukherjee for respondent No. 2. 1952. May 21. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRASEKHARA AIYER J.-This Court grant- ed special leave to appeal m this dse on the Government agreel11g to pay the costs of the respond- ents in respect of the appeal in any event. - The decree-holder was a lady named Hira Devi. The judgment debtor was one Ram Grahit Singh, who retired on 31st January, 1947, as a Head Clerk m the Dead Letter Office, . Calcutta. A money decree was obtained against him on 30th July, 1948. On !st February, 1949, a receiver was appointed for collect- ing the moneys standing to the credit of the judg- ment-debtor in a Provident Fund with the Postal authorities. The Union of India intervened with an application dated 20th September, 1949, for setting aside the order appointing the receiver. Mr. Justice Banerjee dismissed the application of the Union of India, holding that a receiver could be appointed for collecting the fund. On appeal, Trevor Harries C. J. and Sinha J. upheld his view. From the facts stated in the petition filed by the Union of India before the High Court, it apears that a sum of Rs. 1,394-13-1 represents arrears of pay and allowances due to the judgment-debtor and a sum of Rs. l,563, is the compulsory deposit in his P10- vident Fund account. Different c011s1derations will apply to the two sums, though in the lower court the parties seem to have proceeded on the footing that the entire sum was a "compulsory deposit" within the meaning of the Provident Funds Act, 1925. The main question to be decided is whether a receiver can be appointed in execution in respect of Provident Fund money due to the judgment-debtor. ., ' ' .._. . ' • . . .. - ' • -. ) - • \ . ., .. .. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 767 Compulsory deposit and other ,sums in or deriv- ed from any fund to which the Provident Funds Act XIX of 1925 applies are exempt from attachment and sale under section 60 (k), Civil Procedure Code. " Compulsory deposit " is thus defined in sec- tion 2(a) of the Provident Funds Act XIX of 1925:- "Compulsory deposit means 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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.