G. PATRI BASAVANA GOUD, J. ( 1 ) THE third respondent-establishment has fallen in arrears to wards provident fund contributions. The third respondent has also availed of loan facilities from the petitioner-Canara Bank, one of which relates to cash credit facility to the extent of Rs. 330 lakhs. The third respondent has, from out of this limit of Rs. 330 lakhs, drawn to a certain extent and that limit is not yet exhausted, in the sense, that the third respondent can still draw some more amount within the said limit of Rs. 330 lakhs. From out of the balance that the third respondent can so draw from the petitioner in respect of the said cash credit facility, respondents 1 and 2, namely Provident Fund Authorities, are seeking to recover from the said balance towards the arrears of provident fund contributions that the third respondent is still due. In other words, respondents 1 and 2 are construing that the unutilised cash credit facility is money payable by the petitioner-Canara Bank to the third respondent, which the said respondents 1 and 2 can recover from the petitioner-bank. Respondents 1 and 2 are thus construing the position of the petitioner-Canara Bank as a garnishee. With that understanding, they have sought to recover the arrears of provident fund contributions by proceeding under Section 8-F of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1972 ('act' for short ). Inspite of the petitioner filing an affidavit in terms of clause (6) of sub-section (3) of Section 8-F of the Act, explaining the position, respondents 1 and 2 have proceeded to term the petitioner- bank itself as an 'establishment' within the meaning of clause (x) of subsection (3) of Section 8-F, and, have proceeded to recover the amounts due in the manner provided therein. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the said proceedings are challenged. ( 2 ) SRI Mangal Charan Inna, learned Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 would submit thus: An extent of Rs. 330 lakhs by way of cash credit facility provided to the third respondent-establishment is the money belonging to the third respondent and in the custody of the petitionerbank. Any portion of that amount can therefore be proceeded against in course of recovery of provident fund contributions. 330 lakhs by way of cash credit facility provided to the third respondent-establishment is the money belonging to the third respondent and in the custody of the petitionerbank. Any portion of that amount can therefore be proceeded against in course of recovery of provident fund contributions. ( 3 ) SRI P. S. Sundar Markal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, however,urges that merely because a cash credit or overdraft facility is provided to a customer, the amount upto the limit that is provided for would not become the amount belonging to the customer and in the custody of the bank. All that such arrangement would mean is that upto that limit, the customer can draw loan subject to the conditions agreed upon. Providing overdraft facility or cash credit facility does not make the bank a 'debtor' nor would it make a customer a 'creditor' vis-a-vis the bank. With reference to the said customer, therefore, that is with reference to the third respondent-establishment herein, the petitioner-bank can never be called a garnishee. ( 4 ) I would agree with the submission of Sri Sundar Markal. It is true that cash credit facility or overdraft facility is provided to the third respondent-establishment. To the extent the third respondent-establishment avails of the said arrangement and draws money within the limit provided for under the said arrangement, then, to the extent of the money so drawn, the third respondent would be a debtor, and the petitioner-bank would be a creditor. To illustrate, in the given case, out of the cash credit facility of Rs. 330 lakhs, if the third respondent has drawn Rs. 300 lakhs, it could be said that the third respondent owes to the petitioner-bank a sum of Rs. 300 lakhs. It cannot, however, be said that the balance of Rs. 30 lakhs is due from the petitioner-bank to the third respondent-establishment. So long as third respondent-establishment does not choose to avail of the facility of withdrawing the money to the fullest extent that is provided, though the arrangement provided for withdrawing of a sum of Rs. 330 lakhs, the third respondent having chosen to withdraw only upto the extent of Rs. 300 lakhs, the petitioner-bank can be said to have advanced loan to the third respondent-establishment only to the extent of Rs. 300 lakhs. The unavailed portion, therefore, cannot be called an amount due from the bank to the third respondent. 330 lakhs, the third respondent having chosen to withdraw only upto the extent of Rs. 300 lakhs, the petitioner-bank can be said to have advanced loan to the third respondent-establishment only to the extent of Rs. 300 lakhs. The unavailed portion, therefore, cannot be called an amount due from the bank to the third respondent. Any third party, therefore, cannot ask the bank telling the bank that it has got to its credit Rs. 30 lakhs belonging to the third respondent-establishment, and, that the said sum should be paid to the third party. In the circumstances, the petitioner-bank cannot be said to be in the position of a garnishee in respect of unutilised portion of the overdraft or cash credit facility. ( 5 ) WHILE dealing with the analogous provisions of the Income-tax Act, the Madras High Court, in K. M. Adam v Income-tax Officer, II Additional ii Circle, Madras , observed that the said provision in the Incometax act is analogous to an attachment of debt or what is commonly termed, a garnishee summons. The classes of persons on whom such notice could be served are to (1) any person from whom money is due or may become due to the assessee; and (2) any person who holds or may subsequently hold money for or on account of the assessee. The Madras high Court pointed out that the bank, which has offered overdraft facilities to its customer, does not hold the amount specified, as the amount to which the customer may draw, as either 'debtor' of the customer or hold that money on behalf of or on account of the customer. The Madras high Court pointed out that, admitting that a garnishee order itself construes a sufficient notice to term a bank a debtor, still there must be a debt to be attached. Unless the bank is a debtor, there can be no attachment, and an unutilised overdraft amount does not render the bank a debtor in any sense, and therefore, the bank is not a person from whom money is due to the customer, nor does the bank in such a case fall within the expression 'person from whom money may become due'. The Madras High Court, therefore, held that an order of the Income-tax officer virtually directing the bank to pay over to the Income-tax Department, the difference between the limit of the overdraft allowed to the customer and the amount drawn by the customer upto the date of the order would be outside the scope of the relevant provisions of the income-tax Act. ( 6 ) THE Provident Fund Authorities erred in construing the unutilised portion of cash credit facility as the amount of the third respondent-establishment in the hands of the petitioner-bank. ( 7 ) WRIT petition is therefore, allowed. Annexures-A, B and C are quashed. ( 8 ) IT may be incidentally mentioned that, simultaneously with the proceedings against the petitioner-bank, the Provident Fund Authorities had also extended the facility of payment of contributions - arrears in instalments to the third respondent. Sri Subramanya, learned Counsel for the third respondent, submits that the said instalments have been regularly paid by the third respondent, so much so, that as on today, all arrears have stood paid. --- *** --- .