TMI Blog1985 (2) TMI 296X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ificates under Section 46(2) of the Income Tax Act were issued to the Collector of Coimbatore for the recovery of the tax as arrears under the Revenue Recovery Act. In his turn the Collector issued prohibitory orders on March 30, 1957 against the transfer of shares owned by the defaulting assessees in Kaleeswar Mills Ltd. and, further, on June 29, 1957 directed the Tehsildar to take immediate acti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The suit was resisted by the third respondent. The Trial Court decreed the suit but the judgment of the Trial Court was reversed by the High Court which dismissed the suit. Hence this appeal. The simple submission of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the State had a priority over other creditors and that the attachment by the Collector being earlier in point of time than the attachm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut prior attachment exercise its right to priority by making an application to the executing court for payment out. If however, the State does not choose to apply to the Court for payment of its dues from the amount lying in deposit in the Court but allows the amount to be taken away by some other attaching decree holder, the State cannot thereafter make an application for payment of its dues from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment out of amounts brought to Court by the sale of property in execution of a simple money decree obtained by some other attaching decree holder. We fail to see how that case can possibly help the respondent. As pointed out by Vivin Bose, J. in Zumberlal Chhotelal Agarwal and Anr. v. Sitaram and Ors. AIR 1937, Nagpur 80 the prior attachment fastens itself to the proceeds of a sale pursuant to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
