JUDGMENT

Simpson, A J C - This is an application for the removal of an attachment. The attachment was made in execution of one decree, and the property attached is another decree. The applicants are Har Gobind Dayal and Seth Radha Kishan, the two liquidators of the National Bank of Upper India. The opposite party is one Lakhpat Rai, who was a depositor in the Bank. He tried to withdraw his deposit,, but the Bank refused, and on 9th April, 1923, he filed a suit against the Bank and on 31st May, 1923, he obtained a decree for the sum of Rs. 1,362-10-0. By this time the Bank had gone into voluntary liquidation. That liquidation dates either from 6th May, 1923, when one meeting was held, or more probably from 30th May, 1923, when the proceedings of the first meeting were confirmed. In either case the decree was passed after the Bank had gone into liquidation, but this point is not of any importance. In execution of his decree Lakhpat Rai attached another decree. This was a decree for sale obtained by the Bank in a suit brought on the basis of a mortgage. It was dated 16th November, 1923, and it was against one Ram Chandra. Lakhpat Rai attached this decree on 30th November, 1923.

2. The first step taken by the liquidators was to apply to the Court, which was executing Lakhpat Rai's decree, for stay of execution. That Court refused stay of execution by an order passed on 23rd March, 1925, on the ground that the proper course for the liquidators to take was to apply to this Court, under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, so the present application has been filed under Section 215.

3. It is pointed out that under Section 207(1) the assets of the Company have to be applied in satisfaction of its liabilities pari passu, and that to allow Lakhpat Rai to realize his decree in this fashion would be to give him more than his share of the assets of the company. It is also pointed out that Section 215 lays it upon this Court to see that justice is done in cases of voluntary liquidation.

4. On behalf of Lakhpat Rai it is pointed out that the Court has no power to pass the order prayed for. For me the matter is concluded by the authority in the unreported case, Miscellaneous Application No. 63 of 1924, National Bank v. Gopal Das Bansi Dhar; similar powers were exercised by a Bench of this Court, and in the single Judge case, Miscellaneous Application No. 238 of 1923, Apt Prasad v. Chandar Bhal, an application exactly on all fours with the present one was granted. I may add that I agree with my learned brothers that such orders ought to be passed by this Court. Order as prayed for with costs.