http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6
PETITIONER: THE UNION OF INDIA
Vs.
RESPONDENT: HIRA DEVI AND ANOTHER.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21/05/1952
BENCH: AIYAR, N. CHANDRASEKHARA BENCH: AIYAR, N. CHANDRASEKHARA MAHAJAN, MEHR CHAND BOSE, VIVIAN
CITATION: 1952 AIR 227 1952 SCR 765
ACT: Civil Procedure Code, 1908, s. 60 (k)--Provident Funds Act (XIX of 1925), ss. 2 (a), 3 (1)--Compulsory deposit in Provident Fund--Exemption from attachment--Appointment of receiver-Legality.
HEADNOTE: A receiver cannot be appointed in execution of a decree in respect of a compulsory deposit in a Provident Fund due to the judgment debtor. Whatever doubts may have existed under the earlier Act of 1897, the definition of "compulsory deposit" in s. 2 (a) of the Provident Funds Act (XlX of 1925) clearly includes deposits remaining to the credit of the subscriber or depositor after he has retired from serv- ice. Arrears of salary and allowances stand upon a different footing and are not exempt from being proceeded against in execution.
JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 132 of 1951. Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Decree dated 17th May, 1950, of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta (Harries C.J. and Sinha J.) in Appeal No. 41 of 1950 arising out of the Order of 766 Banerjee J. dated 19th December, 1949, in Suit No. 132 of 1948. M.C. Setalvad, Attorney-General f...