Skip to content


H.F.B.D. Hay Vs. Ram Chandar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1917All315(2); (1917)ILR39All308
AppellantH.F.B.D. Hay
RespondentRam Chandar
Excerpt:
.....in favour of the creditor in the present case. x of 1914. on this ground, as well as because we agree generally with the line of reasoning followed and the conclusion arrived at by the learned judges of the oudh court, we feel no hesitation about answering the reference......serving in this country, was not capable of attachment. the line of reasoning followed by the learned judges may or may not affect the somewhat different issue now before us; but it is quite certain that the decision itself is no authority on the subject of the salary of an officer of the indian army. moreover, it is to be observed that, what ever difficulty has been felt by any of the learned judges with. regard to the question now before us turned upon the wording of clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 60 of the code of civil procedure (act v of 1908). thai, sub-section has been repealed by the repealing and amending act no. x of 1914. on this ground, as well as because we agree generally with the line of reasoning followed and the conclusion arrived at by the learned judges.....
Judgment:

Piggott and Walsh, JJ.

1. This is a reference under Section 13 of the Ajmere Code (Regulation I of 1877). We have been obliged to consider the reference in the absence of the parties; but as this course is clearly justified by the provisions of Section 19 of the same Regulation, we do not think it necessary to keep the reference pending on that account. The question raised is whether one moiety of the pay of an officer of the Indian Army, while serving in this country, is attachable in execution of a decree under the Code of Civil Procedure. It is suggested in the order of reference that there has been a conflict of opinion on this point, and reference has been made to the case of Colonel Leaky v. The Bank of Upper India Limited (1911) I.L.R. 33 All. 529, and to a decision of the Bombay High Court Velchand Chhaganlal v. E. Bourchier (1912) I.L.R. 37 Bom. 26. On the other hand, there are cases Calcutta Trades Association v. Ryland (1896) I.L.R. 24 Calc. 102 and Watson v. Lloyd (1901) I.L.R. 25 Mad. 402, which are clearly in favour of the creditor in the present case. We have also been referred to a decision of the Oudh Court in the case of Lieutenant E.G.A. Prins v. Murray and Co. (1914) 23 Indian Cases 935, in which the whole question is thoroughly discussed on the basis of the law as it stood at the time when this decision was pronounced. It is worth while to note at once that the decision in Colonel Lecky's case was to the effect that the salary of an officer of the Royal Artillery, while serving in this country, was not capable of attachment. The line of reasoning followed by the learned Judges may or may not affect the somewhat different issue now before us; but it is quite certain that the decision itself is no authority on the subject of the salary of an officer of the Indian Army. Moreover, it is to be observed that, what ever difficulty has been felt by any of the learned Judges with. regard to the question now before us turned upon the wording of Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Act V of 1908). Thai, sub-section has been repealed by the Repealing and Amending Act No. X of 1914. On this ground, as well as because we agree generally with the line of reasoning followed and the conclusion arrived at by the learned Judges of the Oudh Court, we feel no hesitation about answering the reference. In our opinion the decision of the Ajmere court which has been referred to us was correct, and the order attaching one-half of the salary of the officer in question was rightly passed. The record may be returned with this answer.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //