https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169648 A State contractual revenue claim could not displace a third-party decree-holder's rights or claim priority over a subsisting civil court decree and execution without express statutory authority; the common law priority of sovereign debts could not override the Bank's execution. Once the property was lawfully attached in execution, it remained under the civil court's control, so the Collector could not independently sell it while that attachment subsisted. The attachment under the Bombay City Land Revenue Act was nevertheless valid because substantial compliance was sufficient and the debtor and public had notice of the demand and threatened sale. en-us Thu, 02 Dec 1954 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 Apr 2015 11:11:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169648 A State contractual revenue claim could not displace a third-party decree-holder's rights or claim priority over a subsisting civil court decree and execution without express statutory authority; the common law priority of sovereign debts could not override the Bank's execution. Once the property was lawfully attached in execution, it remained under the civil court's control, so the Collector could not independently sell it while that attachment subsisted. The attachment under the Bombay City Land Revenue Act was nevertheless valid because substantial compliance was sufficient and the debtor and public had notice of the demand and threatened sale. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 02 Dec 1954 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169648