Chakravartti, C.J. - (1.) At the earlier stages of the argument on this Rule, it appeared as if a broad question of fundamental importance would have to be decided, but a closer examination of the record revealed that the point actually calling for decision was a far narrower one.
(2.) The facts are these: Messrs. R. K. Das & Co., who are opposite party No. 2 to this Rule, obtained a building contract from Government in connection with the construction of the Mint and had to make a deposit of Rs. 50,000/- as security for the due execution of the contract. In connection with that undertaking, Messrs. R. K. Das & Co., obtained a supply of building materials from the petitioners, Messrs, Builders Supply Corporation. The petitioners appear to have been unable' to obtain payment for the goods supplied and they Drought a suit for the recovery of their dues, tin that suit, they obtained an order for an attachment before judgment of Rs. 5,000/- out of the security deposit of Rs. 50,000/- made by Messrs. R. K. Das of Co., and lying in the hands of the Superinceriaing Engineer, Calcutta Central Circle No. 1. The order for attachment was made on 18-4-1949 and the attachment was in due course made. Subsequently, on 16-6-1950 the petitioners' suit was decreed by the 5th Additional Subordinate Judge, 24-Parganas, for a sum of Rs. 12,275-9-0. On 14-2-1952 the decree was put into execution in the Court of the 7th Subordinate Judge and Money Execution Case No. 9 of 1952 was started. On the 18th February, following, the Subordinate Judge issued an order for the attachment of a further sum of Rs. 7,275-9-0 out of the amount of the security deposited and while communicating that order to the Superintending Engineer, asked him to transmit to the Court the sum of Rs. 5,000/- already attached before judgment. On receipt of that communication, the Superintending Engineer placed a further sum of Rs. 7,275-9-0 under attachment, but did not send to the Court the sum of Rs. 5,000/-, as requested. On 30-4-1952, the executing Court wrote to the Superintending Engineer, asking him to transmit the whole amount of Rs. 12,275-9-0, attached under the two orders, but the request was not complied with till 9-3-1953. In the meantime, the Certificate Officer of 24-Parganas had, on 23-7-1952, addressed a letter to the Subordinate Judge whereby he made a request that if the Superintending Engineer had transmitted any money to the Court, payment thereof to the petitioners before us might be withheld in order that "a claim under Order 21, Rule 52, Civil P. C.", might be preferred on behalf of Government. Along with that letter, the Certificate Officer sent a copy of another letter which he had addressed to the Superintending Engineer, asking him to make no payment of any money out of the deposit in his hands, but to retain the whole amount after deducting the departmental dues. It was said that arrears of income-tax due from Messrs. R. K. Das & Co., exceeded Rs. 50,000/-and therefore the whole of the security deposit less departmental dues, was liable to be applied to the satisfaction of the tax-debt in respect of which Government had a priority over all unsecured creditors. It appears that there was a prior attachment order, issued by the Certificate Officer on 24-9-1951. In' spite, however, of the letter from the Certificate Officer, the Superintending Engineer sent, as I have already stated, the whole amount attached by the petitioners to the executing Court and the same, paid in one sum and by a single cheque, was received on 9-3-1953. Thereafter on 21-3-1953, the executing Court addressed a letter to the Certificate Officer, apparently in consequence of the letter received from him earlier, requesting him to state why the money which had been brought to Court at the instance of the petitioners should not be paid out, to them and adding that in the absence of any step taken by 10-4-1953, the money would be paid out. Then followed a succession of adjournments, always at the instance of the Union of India represented by the Commissioner of Income-tax, who went on asking for time and yet more time for showing cause against payment of the money to the petitioners. The case was in that position when', on 17-6-1953, the Certificate Officer addressed a letter to the executing Court under Rule 22 of Schedule II, Public Demands Recovery Act and asked the Court to hold the amount subject to further intimation from him. That letter was received by the executing Court on 24-6-1953 and an order withholding payment until further orders was made. Previously, the case had been adjourned to the 8th July and when that date came, there was again an application by the Union of India for a week's time. The application was granted. The case was then adjourned to the 15th July and on the 15th July the Union of India, as represented by the Commissioner of Income-tax, made an application by which they claimed to be entitled to receive the whole amount of Rs. 12,275-9-0 towards satisfaction of the income-tax dues of R. K. Das & Co. and in their right of priority in respect of a tax-debt. A further and a fuller application to the same effect was filed on 11-9-1953 in which the details of the income-tax demand against R. K. Das & Co. were given. It was stated that the demand was for a sum of Rs. 81.537-8-0 and it was on account of the assessment years 1946-47 and 1947-48. In both the applications It was stated that a certificate under Section 46(2), Indian Income-tax Act had been duly forwarded to the Collector of 24 Parganas and proceedings under the Public Demands Recovery Act had been started.
(3.) The learned Judge of the executing Court heard the parties at great length and by an order made on 19-12-1953, directed a sum of Rs. 12,275-9-0, lying in his custody, to be paid out to the Union of India. It is against that order that the present Rule is directed.;