TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the attaching officer remained liable for movable property after making an arrangement for its safe custody under Order 21, Rule 122, notwithstanding Order 21, Rule 43. (ii) Whether the person who undertook to keep the attached property as supurddar could be proceeded against in execution as a surety under Section 145.
Issue (i): Whether the attaching officer remained liable for movable property after making an arrangement for its safe custody under Order 21, Rule 122, notwithstanding Order 21, Rule 43.
Analysis: The rules in Order 21, Rule 43 and the later High Court rule in Order 21, Rule 122 were treated as inconsistent only to the extent that Rule 43 required the attaching officer to retain custody with himself or a subordinate, while Rule 122 authorized the most convenient and economical arrangement subject to Court approval. The later rule, made under the rule-making power in Section 122, prevailed so far as the inconsistency extended. Once the officer made a suitable arrangement and the Court approved it, his responsibility for the custody of the attached movable property ceased.
Conclusion: The attaching officer was not liable after the arrangement was approved by the Court.
Issue (ii): Whether the person who undertook to keep the attached property as supurddar could be proceeded against in execution as a surety under Section 145.
Analysis: A person who voluntarily accepts custody of attached property and undertakes to return it when required assumes liability as a surety for restitution. Such liability can be enforced in execution under Section 145. The Court also noted that the remedy of a separate suit may remain available in an appropriate case, but the existence of execution remedy was sufficient to treat the supurddar as liable. The matter of the heir's or estate's precise liability still required inquiry by the court below.
Conclusion: The supurddar could be proceeded against as a surety in execution under Section 145.
Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded, the order against the applicant was set aside, and the matter was sent back for inquiry into the liability of the deceased supurddar's heir and estate.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a later High Court rule made under the Code authorizes a different mode of custody for attached movable property and the Court approves the arrangement, the attaching officer's responsibility ends; a person who undertakes custody of the attached property and promises restitution may be treated as a surety and proceeded against in execution under Section 145.
TaxTMI 
