https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150105 Rule 44 was construed as applying only to a minor or an incapacitated person, with "incapacitated person" meaning a person rendered incapable of managing affairs by unsoundness of mind or mental infirmity. Mere physical disability was insufficient to attract the rule, and the provision was treated as analogous to Order 32 Rule 15 CPC. On the facts, there was no material showing mental unsoundness, and the distraint was accepted as directed only against the defaulter's movables in the petitioner's custody, not the petitioner's own property. Rule 44 was therefore held inapplicable on the facts, and the notice and recovery proceedings were left undisturbed. en-us Mon, 21 Jun 1971 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 May 2013 18:07:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150105 Rule 44 was construed as applying only to a minor or an incapacitated person, with "incapacitated person" meaning a person rendered incapable of managing affairs by unsoundness of mind or mental infirmity. Mere physical disability was insufficient to attract the rule, and the provision was treated as analogous to Order 32 Rule 15 CPC. On the facts, there was no material showing mental unsoundness, and the distraint was accepted as directed only against the defaulter's movables in the petitioner's custody, not the petitioner's own property. Rule 44 was therefore held inapplicable on the facts, and the notice and recovery proceedings were left undisturbed. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Mon, 21 Jun 1971 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150105