SATHIYABAMA Vs. M PALANISAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question that arises for consideration in this revision is whether the due as provident fund, leave salary, gratuity etc., to the deceased employee can be attached in the hands of the employer pending the suit for recovery of money filed against the legal representatives of such employee for amounts borrowed by him.

(2.) One Mariappan is alleged to have borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 from the first respondent. Promissory note in evidence of the said loan is alleged to be executed on October 20, 2002. Mariappan died on December 31, 2002 and the petitioners are his legal heirs. The first respondent filed O.S. No. 95 of 2003 for recovery of money. Pending suit, the first respondent filed IA. No. 224 of 2003 for attachment before judgment of the amounts aforesaid. The other respondents are the Railways, the garnishees. An order of attachment was passed, against which this revision has been filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that these amounts cannot be attached and in support of his contention, he relied on (i) Percy Woodv. Samuel, AIR 1943 Nag. 333 (ii) Thaj Mohamed v. Balaji Singh AIR 1934 Mad. 173 (iii) Union of India v. Jyoti Chit Fund and Finance AIR 1976 SC 1163 : 1976 (3) SCC 607 : 1976-II-LLJ-69 (iv) Lachmi Narayan v. UmaidRai, AIR 1923 Oudh 21 (v) Nadirshaw v. Times of India AIR 1931 Bom 300 and (vi) Secretary of State for India v. Raj Kumar AIR 1923 Cal. 585. The learned counsel also denied the borrowal and raised several points in defence against the suit claim. Those facts are not necessary for deciding this question and are not dealt with.