OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE OF MADRAS Vs. RANGANAYAKI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case raises a somewhat difficult question. The insolvent has drawn out the deposits that stood to his credit in the Railway Provident. Fund. With part of them he redeemed some of his wife's jewellery and the balance he handed over to her. The question is whether the Official Assignee has any claim on them. It is strenuously contended on behalf of the insolvent and his wife that the Official Assignee has no such claim. Section 3 (1), Provident Funds Act of 1925 is, no doubt, very widely expressed, but it seems to me that the short answer to the question propounded is that the sub-section is intended to protect compulsory deposits, only so long as they remain deposited in the fund. A number of decisions has been cited, but most of them do not touch the point that has now arisen. Veerchand V/s. B.B. and C.I. Ry. [1905] 29 Bom. 259, was the case of a depositor who had retired from service, but had not yet drawn out his deposits. The decision was that they could not be attached while "in the company's hands" Secy. of State V/s. Rajkumar Mukerjee A.I.R. 1923 Cal. 585 was a similar case and was similarly decided. Richardson, J., remarked:

(2.) In other words, so long as the deposits subsist in the fund so long, at any rate, both as matter of legal construction and in the common and ordinary way of speaking, they are properly and correctly described as compulsory deposits under Section 4 of the Act, they are not liable to attachment.

(3.) In Hindley V/s. Joynarain Marwari [1919] 46 Cal. 962, Rankin, J., observed: Whether the employee is in the service or out of the service, whether he be alive or dead, his share is unattachable in the hands of the institution.