From the order of the Subordinate Judge the 1st respondent preferred an appeal being First Appeal No.
9,672 1 0 out of the sale proceeds realised from the auction sale of the defaulter Shri Chandmals property and deposited with the Court of Sub Judge, Aurangabad, towards satisfaction of the Decree No.
On August 17, 1958 the Sales Tax Officer, Aurangabad Circle wrote a letter to the District Judge, Aurangabad pointing out that a sum of Rs.
9,672/ out of the sale proceeds under s. 119 of the Hyderabad Land Revenue Act Hyd.
14,541/ and odd.
104 and It 9 of the Hyderabad Land Revenue Act the Gov ernment was entitled to priority for the arrears of sales tax due from the second respondent over the claim of the 1st respondent The learned Judge accordingly dismissed the First Appeal.
From the judgment of Naik, J. the 1st respondent took the matter in appeal under the Letters Patent.
Thereupon the 1st respondent made an application to the trial companyrt challenging the validity of the order of the Collector.
The security bond furnished by Jogilal Mulchand read as follows I, the Defendant No.
The Court had ordered the second respondent to furnish security for the amount of the decree which may be passed against the firm in the suit.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated December 17, 1962 of the Bombay High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.
25,000/ If I fail to pay the amount of the security, the Court will then be entitled to recover the amount of the security from the property hereby charged On April 30, 1955 the Subordinate Judge granted a decree against the 2nd respondent for a sum of Rs.
341 of 1959 in the Bombay High Court The appeal was heard by Naik, J. who by his judgment dated June 22, 1960 held that in view of the provisions companytained in ss.
The amount should be remitted to the Sales Tax Officer, Aurangabad.
A Division Bench companysisting of Patel and K. K. Desai, JJ.
2 therefore stand as a surety and declare that if the Honble Court decides the suit against the Defendants, he will abide by every order passed by the Court and if he fails to do so, then I. defendant No.
In the execution of the decree the house which was charged under the security bond was sold and one Girdhardas purchased it in auction sale which was companyfirmed by the Court on August 14, 1958 and the sale proceeds thereof were deposited by the said Girdhardas in the executing Court.
On the application of the first respondent an order for interim injunction was passed in respect of certain properties belonging to the second respondent.
T. Desai, R. Ganapathy Iyer and S. P. Nayyar, for the appellants.
167 situate at Kasba and Taluka Vijapur, District Aurangabad of the value of Rs.
Respondent No.
Act VIII of 1317F. The order of the Collector stated as follows Sanction is therefore accorded under Section 119 of Hyderabad Land Revenue Act to attach the amount of Rs.
29 of 1960.
On April 28, 1955 Jogilal Mulchand, one of the partners of the second respondent furnished security by creating a charge on his immovable property, which was a house at Aurangabad.
Hans Raj Sawhney, P. C. Bhartari and 0.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
C. Mathur, for the respondents.
On September 23, 1958 the District Judge sent a letter to the Subordinate Judge asking him number to pay the sale proceeds of the house to the decree bolder i.e., the first respondent.
2 stand as surety to the extent of Rs.
On March 11, 1955 the first respondent filed a suit being Civil Suit No.
20,000/ Rupees Twenty thousand in O.S. companyns and declare that I shall pay the amount of security into Court and for fulfilling the same I create a charge on my one pucca two storied house possessed by me known as Chandi Posh bearing No.
After the security bond was furnished, the attachment was released.
14,541/ and odd in the Court of Subordinate Judge at Aurangabad.
1128 of 1965.
28/1 of 1955 passed against Shri Chandmal Manmal.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ramaswami, J. This appeal is brought, by special leave, from the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated December 17, 1962 in Letters Patent Appeal No.
28/1 of 1955 against the second respondent for recovering a sum of Rs.
29 of 1960.
2, the firm of Chandmal Manmal was in debted to the 1st respondent, Central Bank of India, Aurangabad branch.
The 1st respondent filed an application for execution of the decree Linder s. 145 of the Civil Procedure Code.
allowed the appeal by their judgment dated December 17, 1962 holding that S. 119 of the Hyderabad Land Revenue Act applied only to property which was in the custody and possession of the judgment debtor and number in the custody or possession of a Court.
Subsequently, the Collector of Aurangabad made an order on November 20, 1958, distraining the amount of Rs.
9,672/ and odd was due to the Government from the second respondent on account of arrears of sales tax for the years 1950 51 to 1955 56.
