TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court affirms Crown's priority in fee recovery over pauper suit properties.</h1> <h3>O.S. Varadachari Versus Secy. of State</h3> O.S. Varadachari Versus Secy. of State - 1936 AIR 602 Mad Issues:1. Priority of Crown debts in relation to court-fee payments.2. Interpretation of Rule 10, Order 33, Civil Procedure Code regarding first charge.3. Application of the doctrine of priority of Crown debts in the context of court-fee recovery from defendants in a suit.Detailed Analysis:1. The revision petition dealt with the issue of the priority of Crown debts concerning court-fee payments. The case involved defendants directed to pay court-fee to the Government from proceeds of a sale. The Government claimed priority as a Crown debt over the decree-holder in another suit. The lower Court upheld the Government's priority contention, leading to the revision petition by the decree-holder in the second suit.2. The petitioner argued that Rule 10, Order 33, Civil Procedure Code only declared a first charge on the subject matter of the pauper suit, suggesting that the Code did not intend to extend the doctrine of Crown debt priority to court-fee orders under Order 33. Reference was made to Attorney General v. Dr. Keyser's Royal Hotel (1920) AC 508 to support the contention that the Government might have waived or restricted the operation of Crown debt priority.3. The judgment rejected the petitioner's argument, emphasizing that the Government's right to recover court-fee from specific defendants was not affected by the possibility of recovering it from the properties decreed in the pauper suit. The Court cited Rule 13 of Order 33, Civil Procedure Code, which treats disputes between the Government and directed parties as questions under Section 47. Referring to past cases like Secy. of State v. Bombay Landing & Shipping Co. Ltd. (1868-69) 5 Bom HCR 23, the Court affirmed the Government's entitlement to invoke the doctrine of priority of Crown debts. The judgment highlighted Section 73 of the Code, indicating that the Government's rights, including first charge entitlement, were preserved. Consequently, the Court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the lower Court's order in favor of the Government.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
