The respondent bank preferred an appeal.
Thereafter the Circle Officer upon protest by the respondent bank called upon the bank to take delivery of the goods attached.
Defendants No.
3181/ interest and companyts.
The respondent a companyoperative Bank had certain transactions with the respondents firm of Prabhudas Hathibhai and certain goods of the firm were pledged with the respondent bank.
The District Court dismissed the appeal and companyfirmed the decree.
The suit was tried by the Civil Judge, Nasik.
The respondent bank found that the goods were damaged while in the custody of the Government of Bombay.
The respondent bank alleged that the attachment was illegal and the State was responsible for loss or damage.
The present appeal is against the order of the Bombay High Court dated 7 April, 1966 rejecting the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the State of Bombay.
The District Court held that the attachment was illegal and wrongful and held that the respondent bank will be entitled to claim damages.
The Bombay High Court by judgment dated 15 and 16 March, 1965 allowed the appeal and held that the attachment was illegal, unwarranted and unjustified because the Govt.
3455 was passed with interest and other reliefs.
The Circle Officer attached the goods pledged with the respondent bank.
A decree for Rs.
875/ out of the said amount to the respondent bank The respondent bank preferred an appeal.
5, 7 and 9 were number liable for companyts.
The District Court found that the Circle Officer would be liable for wrongful attachment, but the Circle Officer was protected Under Section 6 of the Bombay Rent Jurisdiction Act, The District Court held that the State was number liable for tort.
It was ordered that the State of Bombay shall pay Rs.
had numberpriority over the bank in respect of dues and passed a decree against all the defendants.
The State of Bombay applied for admission of appeal under the Letters Patent which was rejected by an order dated 7 April, 1966 Thereafter the appellant filed a petition for special leave to appeal which was granted.
The Income tax Officer, Nasik issued certificate of recovery Under Section 46 of the Income tax, 1922 against the properties of the respondent firm.
The respondent filed a suit inter alia against the State of Bombay, the Collector of Nasik, the Mamlaldar of Niphad, Circle Officer of District Nasik and the Union of India and claimed a decree for Rs.
N. Ray, J. This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment dated 7 April, 1966 of the Bombay High Court refusing to grant certificate to appeal.
