5,000 out of the aforesaid security deposit of Rs.
During the companyrse of these proceedings, on the 17th June, 1953, the Certificate Officer addressed a letter to the Executing Court under Rule 22 of Schedule 11 to the Public Demands Recovery Act hereinafter called the Recovery Act and asked the companyrt to hold the amount subject to further intimation from him.
1 would show cause why the amount in question should number be paid to the appellant.
Meanwhile, the Certificate Officer of 24 Parganas bad addressed a letter to the Subordinate Judge on the 23rd July, 1952, and requested him that if the Superintending Engineer had transmitted any money to his companyrt, its payment to the appellant should be withheld in order to enable a cl aim under 0.21 r. 52 of the Civil Procedure Code to be preferred on behalf of the Government.
2, but to retain it after deducting the departmental dues.
2 had a priority over the judgment debt due to the appellant from the same debtor, and so, the whole of the amount under attachment ought to be paid to it towards partial satisfac tion of the said income tax dues.
At this stage, the Commissioner of Income tax, representing respondent No.
In spite of this letter, however, the Superintending Engineer sent the whole of the amount attached at the instance of the appellant to the Executing Court and it was received in the Executing Court on the 9th March, 1953.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated June 21, 1955 of the Calcutta High Court in Civil Revision Case No.
Tracing the origin of this doctrine, the learned Judge referred to the Commentary of Lord Coke on Littleton, where Lord Coke has put the matter in these words The King, by his prerogative, regularly is to be preferred, in payment of his duty or debt, before any subject although the Kings debt or duty be the latter p. 48 .
1, the Union of India, is entitled to claim that the tax due to it from respondent No.
The Superintending Engineer was informed by this letter that arrears of income tax due from respondent No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Gajendragadkar, C.J. The short question of law which arises in this appeal is whether respondent No.
2 obtained a supply of building materials from the appellant.
2 exceeded Rs.
12,275 9 0 which was under attachment as a result of the two previous orders passed in that behalf, but this requisition also was number companyplied with till March 9, 1953.
On every such occasion, the Commissioner intimated to the Executing Court that respondent No.
12,275 9 0.
On the 21st March, 1953, the Executing Court addressed a letter to the Certificate Officer in reply to the companymunication received by it from him, requiring him to state why the amount in question should number be paid to the appellant and adding that in case numbereffective step was taken on or before the 10th April, 1953, the said amount would be paid to the appellant.
Along with that letter, the Certificate Officer sent a companyy of another letter which had been addressed by him to the Superintending Engineer asking him number to make any payment out of the amount deposited by respondent No.
Four days thereafter, the Subordinate Judge issued an order for the attachment of a further sum of Rs.
50,000 as security for the due execution of the companytract.
Finally, on the 15th July, 1953, respondent No.
1 made an application to the Executing Court in which it claimed that the tax amount due to it from respondent No.
7,275 9 0 under attachment, but did number companyply with the requisition of the companyrt to remit Rs.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
5,000 to it.
7,275 9 0 out of the aforesaid security amount deposited by respondent No.
This deposit was lying with the Superintending Engineer, Calcutta Central Circle No.
9 of 1952 was started.
This decree was put in execution by the appellant on the 14th February, 1952, in the companyrt of the 7th Sub Judge and in companysequence, Money Execution Case No.
V. Gupte, Solicitor General, N. D. Karkhanis and R. N. Sachthey, for respondent No.
This question has been answered against the appellant by the Calcutta High Court, and by its present appeal brought to this Court with a certificate issued by the said High Court, the appellant companytends that the decision of the Calcutta High Court is erroneous in law.
A similar application was made on the 11th September, 1953, and this application gave material details in respect of the income tax demand against respondent No.
In companynection with the execution of the said, companytract, respondent No.
Subsequently, on the 16th June, 1950, the appellants suit was decreed by the 5th Additional Subordinate Judge, 24 Parganas, for a sum of Rs.
On the 30th April, 1952, the Executing Court wrote to the Superintending Engineer and asked him to transmit the whole of the amount of Rs.
2, M s. R. K. Das Co., on account of the assessment years 1946 47 and 1947 48 has priority and precedence over the decretal amount due to the appellant, M s. Builders Supply Corporation, from respondent No.
On receiving this companymunication, the Superintending Engineer placed a further sum of Rs.
50,000.
C. Das Gupta and Sukumar Ghose, for the appellant.
It appears that respondent No.
This letter was received by the Executing Court on the 24th June, 1953, and in companysequence, the Executing Court passed an order withholding payment to the appellant until further orders.
824 of 1963.
The appellant was unable to secure payment for the goods thus supplied by it, and so, it had to sue respondent No.
231 of 1954.
2 secured a building companytract from the Government in companynection with the companystruction of the Mint and in that behalf it had to make a deposit of Rs.
2 for recovery of the dues.
1, intervened and moved the Executing Court for adjournment on several occasions.
In that suit, on the 18th April, 1949, the appellant obtained an order for attachment before judgment of Rs.
