K C SARANGI Vs. BICHITRANANDA KAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision impugns the order passed by the ld. Subordinate Judge, First Court, Cuttack, directing the petitioner to make deposit of Rs. 97,975 in the Court.

(2.) THE case of the opposite party is narrated in brief. The opposite party is the plaintiff in Title Suit No. 82 of 1979 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, against All Orissa Non -Journalist Employees Union who are the defendants. The relief claimed in the suit is to injunct the defendants restraining them not to manage, administer, publish and circulate the daily newspaper 'Matrubhumi', commanding them to restore its possession and management to the opposite party and to further restrain them not to receive any amount form the public relations Department of the state Government or other concerns due to the daily newspaper 'Matrubhumi'. A sum of Rs. 95,975 was to be received by the management of Matrubhumi from the public relations Department of the State Government. Kar Bros., a partnership firm, had income -tax liability with which neither opposite party No. 1 nor the management of Matrubhumi had any connection. The petitioner, who was the ITO, by his attachment order dt. 22nd March 1982 attached the entire amount of Rs. 95,975 in the hands of the director of the public relations Department of the State Government towards the income -tax liability of Kar Bros. although the said amount was the property of the management of Matrubhumi and receivable by the opposite party as the Receiver. The petitioner sent a copy of the attachment order to the opposite party by letter dt. 26th March 1982 on receipt of which the latter filed an application before the former for vacation of the order of attachment, but without success. The attachment might result in total stoppage of publication of the newspaper and non -payment of the salary and statutory dues of the workers. It is stated that the amount was custodia legis and its attachment was illegal.

(3.) THE ld. subordinate -Judge did not receive oral or documentary evidence, but after hearing the parties recorded the following finding :