SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1957 Supreme(Pat) 7

PATNA HIGH COURT
Sinha and K.Dayal JJ.
Hindustan Bicycle Manufacturing And Industrial Corporation Ltd.
Versus
Nath Bank Ltd.
Civil Revision No. 330 of 1954 ; 455 of 1954 ;
Decided On : JANUARY 04, 1957

The Court has jurisdiction to ask for security from the judgment-debtor whose properties are under attachment of the Court. The attachment does not cease to exist on the filing of the application for execution.

Headnote:

ATTACHMENT OF PROPERTY - SECURITY FOR WORKING ATTACHED FACTORY - JURISDICTION OF COURT - CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (ACT V OF 1908), SECS. 46, 43, 43-A - ORDER XXI, RULES 43, 43-A.

Fact of the Case:

The judgment-debtor, the Hindustan Bicycle Manufacturing and Industrial Corporation Limited (Corporation), challenged the jurisdiction of the Court to ask for security from the Corporation. The properties were attached, and the Corporation was allowed to work the factory on furnishing security. The decree-holder, the Nath Bank Limited, filed a revision petition against the order of the Court below, which had observed that the order of attachment would no longer be in force in view of the fact that an execution petition had been filed.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the order of the Court below was not without jurisdiction. The properties were attached, and the judgment-debtor had nothing to do with those properties until the attachment subsisted. The Court was entitled to put the judgment-debtor, the Corporation, on terms, if the judgment-debtor wanted to work the factory. The Court also held that the attachment had not ceased to exist on the filing of the application for execution. The decree-holder had applied for an order for sale by filing an application for execution during the subsistence of the attachment as extended by the order of the Court which passed the decree.

Issues: 1. Whether the Court had jurisdiction to ask for security from the judgment-debtor whose properties were under attachment of the Court? 2. Whether the attachment had ceased to exist on the filing of the application for execution?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court has jurisdiction to ask for security from the judgment-debtor whose properties are under attachment of the Court. The properties attached came in the custody of the Court, and the judgment-debtor had nothing to do with those properties until the attachment subsisted. The Court was entitled to put the judgment-debtor, the Corporation, on terms, if the judgment-debtor wanted to work the factory. 2. The attachment had not ceased to exist on the filing of the application for execution. The decree-holder had applied for an order for sale by filing an application for execution during the subsistence of the attachment as extended by the order of the Court which passed the decree.

Final Decision: 1. The application filed by the judgment-debtor was dismissed with costs. 2. The application filed by the decree-holder was allowed, but without costs, and the order of the Court below to the effect that the attachment had ceased to exist on the filing of the application for execution was set aside.

Judgment

Sinha, J.

1. I shall deal with these civil revisions separately.

2. Civil Revn. No. 330 has been filed by the judgment-debtor, the Hindustan Bicycle Manufacturing and Industrial Corporation Limited (which will hereafter be referred to as the Corporation) against which the opposite party, the Nath Bank Limited, had obtained a decree for a sum of rupees one lac, thirty thousand and odd in the original side of the Calcutta High Court on the 27th of March, 1953. On the 8th of October, 1953, a precept under Sec. 46 of the Code of Civil Procedure was issued by the Calcutta High Court and sent to the District Judge, Patna, to attach the properties mentioned in the schedule of the precept. In pursuance of the said precept, the learned District Judge, Patna, on the 16th of November, 1953, ordered attachment of the properties specified in the precept. On the 19th of November, 1853, the immoveable properties and on the 17th of December, 1953, the movable properties were attached. It appears, upon a request made by the petitioner, namely, the Corporation, that, even after the attachment, they should be allowed to work the factory, the learned District Judge, by his order dated the 5th of January, 1954, directed the factory to be worked provided security was furnished to the extent of seventy-five thousand rupees by the 1st of March, 1954.

In the meantime, it appears, the attachment under the precept was extended up to the 8th of February, 1954, and on the 19th of January, 1954, the decree was transferred to the Patna Court, and a petition for execution, registered as Execution Case No. 3 of 1954, was filed on the 10th of February, 1954, 8th and 9th being public holidays. Thereafter, on the 16th of March, 1954, the learned Judge, after hearing the parties directed that the factory should furnish security of rupees one lac by the 16th of April, 1954, and further that, until the security was furnished, the peons who were guarding the property in the building of the said company should remain on duty until further orders. The Corpora tion has come up in revision challenging the jurisdic tion of the Court to ask for security from the Corpo ration.

3. It is contended by Mr. Tarkeshwar Nath learned counsel appearing for the Corporation, that the order is wholly without jurisdiction as there is no provision anywhere in the law for demand of security from a judgment-debtor. It is submitted that the properties were attached, and if the properties were attached, no law permitted demand of security from the judgment-debtor whose properties were under attachment of the Court. In my opinion, the submission made must be repelled. When the properties were attached, the properties came in the custody of the Court, and the judgment-debtor had nothing to do with those properties until the attachment subsisted. The movable properties which were attached could have been removed to the Court premises and put under lock and key. Order XXI, Rules 43 and 43-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by this Court, read as follows:-

-

"43. Where the property to be attached is, movable property other than agricultural produce, in the possession of the judgment-debtor, the attachment shall be made by actual seizure, and the attaching officer shall be responsible for the due custody thereof: Provided that, when the property seized is subject to speedy and natural decay, or when the expense of keeping it in custody is likely to exceed its value, the attaching officer may sell it at once."

"43-A. (1) The attaching officer shall/in suitable cases, keep the attached property in the village or locality either:-

- (a) in his own custody in any suitable place provided by the judgment-debtor, or in his absence by any adult member of his family who is present on his own premises or elsewhere;

(b) in the case of livestock, and provided the decree-holder furnishes the necessary funds, in the local pound, if a pound has been established in or near the village, in which

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top