J. RAMGOPAL Vs. H. MISRILAL AND SONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is employed as the Sales Manager in George Oakes Ltd., a private firm dealing in motors and other accessories in Bangalore City. In pursuance of a decree obtained against him, the respondent sought to attach the salary of the petitioner and the attachment warrant was served on his employer on 7 -10 -1952. It is contended that no pay was due on that date and that the salary that may become due on a future date to person in private employment cannot be attached in advance under Order 21, Rule 48, Civil P. C. This argument is not without force.

(2.) ORDER 21, Rule 43 refers to the attachment of salary or allowances of a servant of the Crown or of a Railway Company or of any Local Authority. Nowhere in that Rule is any reference made to the mode of attachment of the salary due from a private firm. It is undoubted that under Section 60, Civil P. C. Clause (i) the exemption from attachment of salary to the extent of first hundred rupees and one half of the remainder is common to all services, public or private; it is argued on that basis that salary due to a person from a private firm could be attached whether before or after it becomes payable. This contention appears to be unsound. Expln.

(3.) PETITION allowed.