CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
R.C. Mitter, J., Nasim Ali, J.
Durga Prosad Chamaria - Appellant
Versus
Secretary of State & Ors. - Respondent
Decided On : 09-04-1937
Public Demands Recovery Act - Adjustment of Decree - Section 19, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 146, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 21, Rule 2 - The judgment discusses the adjustment of a decree under Section 19 of the Public Demands Recovery Act and its relation to Order 21, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. It interprets the rights and powers of the attaching certificate holder and the original decree-holder, emphasizing that the attaching certificate holder is not the representative of the original decree-holder for all purposes and does not have the right to adjust the attached decree in any way he likes. The judgment concludes that the adjustment pleaded by the judgment-debtor cannot be recorded under Order 21, Rule 2 of the Code.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant obtained a decree against respondents in a Title Suit. The Certificate Officer attached this decree in execution of a certificate for realization of arrears of income tax. The respondents applied for recording an adjustment of the attached decree, which the appellant objected to. The Subordinate Judge recorded the adjustment and satisfaction of the attached decree, leading to the appellant's appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the adjustment pleaded by the judgment-debtor cannot be recorded under Order 21, Rule 2 of the Code. It held that the attaching certificate holder is not the representative of the original decree-holder for all purposes and does not have the right to adjust the attached decree in any way he likes.
Issues: The issues revolved around the rights and powers of the attaching certificate holder, the original decree-holder, and the judgment-debtors in relation to the adjustment and satisfaction of the attached decree.
Ratio Decidendi: The judgment emphasized that the attaching certificate holder is not the representative of the original decree-holder for all purposes and does not have the right to adjust the attached decree in any way he likes. It clarified the limited purpose for which the attaching certificate holder is deemed to be the representative of the original decree-holder.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the order recording the adjustment and satisfaction of the attached decree, and dismissed the application of the judgment-debtor for recording the adjustment and satisfaction of the decree. The appellant was awarded costs in the appeal from the respondents.
JUDGMENT
Nasim Ali, J. - On 19th April 1926, the appellant Durga Prosad Chamaria, obtained a decree against respondents 2 to 4 Radha Kissen Chamaria, Mati Lal Chamaria and Srimati Anar Dei Sethani in Title Suit No. 61 of 1923, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Howrah, for Rupees 8,61,000 with interest at a certain rate up to the date of realization. Respondents 2 to 4 made certain payments from time to time towards the satisfaction of this decree, but these payments did not satisfy the entire decree. On 1st April 1933, the Certificate Officer of Howrah attached this decree u/s 19, Clause 1, Public Demands Recovery Act, in execution of a certificate filed in Certificate Case No. 1 M of 1933/34 for realization of about Rs. 3,86,000 due as arrears of income tax to respondent 1, the Secretary of State for India in Council, from the appellant. On 17th March 1934, respondent 1 applied to the Subordinate Judge, Howrah, to whom notice of attachment was given, to realize the amount due under the attached decree by executing the attached decree against respondents 2 to 4. The appellant was also made a party to this application for execution. On receiving this application, the Subordinate Judge, on 8th May 1934, ordered notice to be issued on the appellant as well as respondents 2 to 4 to show cause why the execution proceedings should not be carried on. This notice was issued on 7th July 1934, and was served on the appellant as well as on respondents 2 to 4 on 27th June 1934. On 21st June 1934 respondents 2 to 4 filed an application under Order 21, Rule 2, Sub-rule 2, Civil P.C., for recording an adjustment of the attached decree between them and respondent 1, and its full satisfaction on the basis of the said adjustment. This petition was registered as Misc. No. 59 of 1934.
2. On 27th June 1934, in pursuance of the notice served on him on that day, the appellant filed an objection to the execution of the attached decree u/s 47, Civil P.C. This objection was registered as Misc. Case No. 67 of 1934. After several adjournments both these cases came up for hearing before the learned Subordinate Judge on 26th January 1935. On that day the learned Subordinate Judge framed certain issues after hearing the parties. On 28th January 1935, he allowed the petition of the judgment-debtors under Order 21, Rule 2, sub-r. 2, and recorded the adjustment and full satisfaction of the attached decree and dismissed the appellant's objection u/s 47, Civil P.C. Hence these two appeals by the original decree-holder Durga Prosad Chamaria.
3. M.A. No. 252 of 1935.-This appeal arises out of the petition of the objection filed by the appellant on 27th June 1934 u/s 47, Civil P.C. The material objections are these: (a) That the Secretary of State for India in Council is not entitled to attach and execute the decree as the certificate in execution of which the decree had been attached had been cancelled, (b) That before attachment the appellant had assigned his right, title and interest in the decree to one Keshardeo Chamaria on certain terms, one of these terms being that he would get a refund of Rs. 1,00,000 from the assignee on the happening of certain events.
4. The learned Subordinate Judge has held that the appellant on his own admission had no locus standi to maintain this objection as by assignment his interest in the decree had come to an end and the contingencies under which he was entitled to get the refund had not yet arisen and the amount to be refunded to him by the assignee was not a charge on the decree. Mr. Banerjee, appearing on behalf of the appellant in the course of the hearing of this appeal, abandoned the objection that the certificate in execution of which the decree had been attached had been can celled and that the Secretary of State for India in Council was not entitled to proceed with the execution. As regards the abjection based on the alleged assignment of the decree to Keshardeo before attachment he asked us to dispose of this appe
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.