https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292303 The appeal was allowed with costs, and the action was dismissed with costs. The court found that the debt had been effectively seized by the Indore State authorities before the plaintiff's attachment order, and thus, the attachment could not operate on the debt. The appellant's alternative argument regarding potential double payment was not considered as it was not properly raised during the proceedings. en-us Mon, 28 Sep 1931 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Dec 2020 14:48:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292303 The appeal was allowed with costs, and the action was dismissed with costs. The court found that the debt had been effectively seized by the Indore State authorities before the plaintiff's attachment order, and thus, the attachment could not operate on the debt. The appellant's alternative argument regarding potential double payment was not considered as it was not properly raised during the proceedings. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 28 Sep 1931 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292303