Terminal benefits, arrears of salary, leave salary, encashment of leave salary and Insurance amount can be attached and no exemption can be claimed on that amount - The Provident Fund money is exempt from attachment
Citation
CDJ 1952 SC 2227
Union of India vs Hira Devi and others
Head Note
Provident Funds Act, 1925 – Collection of Fund – Appointment of Receiver – Receiver was appointed for collecting moneys standing to credit of judgment-debtors in Provident Fund with Postal authorities –Appellant filed application for setting aside order appointing the Receiver, same was dismissed – Appeal filed by Appellant was dismissed – Whether Receiver could be appointed in execution in respect of Provident Fund money due to the judgment-debtor –
Court Held – The Provident Fund money is exempt from attachment and is inalienable – No execution can lie against such a sum – Execution cannot be sought against the Provident Fund money by way of appointment of Receiver – Provident Fund amount is not paid to the subscriber after date of his retirement – This, however, does not make it any the less compulsory deposit within the meaning of the Act – Hence, order of the lower Court appointing Receiver is set aside as regards Provident Fund amount lying to credit of judgment-debtor – Appeal allowed.
(Paras 10, 15, 17, 18)
Cases Referred:
Rajindra narain singh v. sundra bibi', 52 ind app 262 (p c).
Sundra bibi v. rajendra narain singh', 43 all 617
Nawab bahadur of murshidabad v. karnani industrial bank limited', 58 ind app 215 ( p c)
Rajindra narain singh's case', 52 ind app 262 (p c)
Secretary of state v. bai somi', 57 bom 507
Secretary of state v. venkata lakshmamma', 49 mad 567
Secretary of state v. bai somi', 57 bom 507
Jankinath v. pramatha nath', 44 cal w n 261 at p. 266 (pc),
Dominion of india v. ashutosh das', 54 cal w n 254,
Ramprasad v. motiram' 26 pat 705,
Nawab bahadur of murshidabad's case', 58 ind app 215 (pc),
Vibhudapriya thirtha swamiar v. lakshmindra thirtha swamiar", 54 ind app 228 (pc) )
Niladri sahu' v. mahant chaturbhuj das', 52 ind app 253 (p c),
Miller v. b. b. and c. i. railway', 5 bom l r 454
Raj kumar mukharjee v. w. g. godfrey', air 1922 cal 196,
Comparative Citations:
1952 AIR(SC) 227, 1952 (1) SCJ 326, 1952 SCR 765, 1952 (2) MLJ 265, 1952 MWN(Civil) 511, 1952 (65) LW 628,
(Full Bench)
Court Held – The Provident Fund money is exempt from attachment and is inalienable – No execution can lie against such a sum – Execution cannot be sought against the Provident Fund money by way of appointment of Receiver – Provident Fund amount is not paid to the subscriber after date of his retirement – This, however, does not make it any the less compulsory deposit within the meaning of the Act – Hence, order of the lower Court appointing Receiver is set aside as regards Provident Fund amount lying to credit of judgment-debtor – Appeal allowed.
(Paras 10, 15, 17, 18)
Cases Referred:
Rajindra narain singh v. sundra bibi', 52 ind app 262 (p c).
Sundra bibi v. rajendra narain singh', 43 all 617
Nawab bahadur of murshidabad v. karnani industrial bank limited', 58 ind app 215 ( p c)
Rajindra narain singh's case', 52 ind app 262 (p c)
Secretary of state v. bai somi', 57 bom 507
Secretary of state v. venkata lakshmamma', 49 mad 567
Secretary of state v. bai somi', 57 bom 507
Jankinath v. pramatha nath', 44 cal w n 261 at p. 266 (pc),
Dominion of india v. ashutosh das', 54 cal w n 254,
Ramprasad v. motiram' 26 pat 705,
Nawab bahadur of murshidabad's case', 58 ind app 215 (pc),
Vibhudapriya thirtha swamiar v. lakshmindra thirtha swamiar", 54 ind app 228 (pc) )
Niladri sahu' v. mahant chaturbhuj das', 52 ind app 253 (p c),
Miller v. b. b. and c. i. railway', 5 bom l r 454
Raj kumar mukharjee v. w. g. godfrey', air 1922 cal 196,
Comparative Citations:
1952 AIR(SC) 227, 1952 (1) SCJ 326, 1952 SCR 765, 1952 (2) MLJ 265, 1952 MWN(Civil) 511, 1952 (65) LW 628,
(Full Bench)
Comments
Post a Comment