TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether fixed deposit receipts representing pension and gratuity benefits could be attached in execution in view of proviso (g) to Section 60(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; (ii) whether the High Court could alter the mode of satisfaction of the decree and direct adjustment from the appellant's fixed deposits instead of adhering to the decree and the order of the Executing Court; (iii) whether the revision filed by the decree-holder was barred by Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Issue (i): Whether fixed deposit receipts representing pension and gratuity benefits could be attached in execution in view of proviso (g) to Section 60(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Analysis: The retiral benefits of pension and gratuity, even after receipt and conversion into fixed deposits, retained their protected character. The exemption under proviso (g) to Section 60(1) of the Code was held applicable to such amounts, and they could not be attached for satisfaction of the decree. The earlier contrary view was treated as having been diluted by later authority.
Conclusion: The fixed deposit receipts could not be attached, and the finding of the Executing Court on exemption was in favour of the appellant.
Issue (ii): Whether the High Court could alter the mode of satisfaction of the decree and direct adjustment from the appellant's fixed deposits instead of adhering to the decree and the order of the Executing Court.
Analysis: The decree directed recovery first by sale of the hypothecated vehicle and only thereafter from other properties if any amount remained due. The Executing Court was bound to execute the decree according to its tenor and could not be made to rewrite the mode of recovery. The High Court erred in shifting the burden onto the appellant to produce the vehicle and in directing recovery from exempt retiral benefits.
Conclusion: The High Court's interference with the executing order was unsustainable, and the appellant succeeded on this issue.
Issue (iii): Whether the revision filed by the decree-holder was barred by Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Analysis: The order under challenge in revision was treated as one that finally determined the manner in which the decree was to be satisfied, and therefore it did not fall within the bar urged under the proviso to Section 115(1) of the Code.
Conclusion: The revision was held to be maintainable, though that did not affect the final relief granted to the appellant.
Final Conclusion: The decree had to be executed in accordance with its terms, the appellant's retiral-benefit deposits remained immune from attachment, and the order of the Executing Court was restored.
Ratio Decidendi: Retiral benefits protected by proviso (g) to Section 60(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 do not lose their exempt character merely because they are received and placed in fixed deposits, and an executing or revisional court cannot alter the decree's prescribed mode of recovery by directing attachment of such protected assets.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
