Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 330 (2.67 seconds)
Documents citing Raman Tech. & Process Engg. Co. & Anr vs Solanki Traders on 20 November, 2007

Tahal Consulting Engineers India Pvt. ... vs Promax Power Ltd. on 11 April, 2023

93. Insofar as judgment of Supreme Court in case of Raman Tech. & Process Engg. Co. (supra) relied upon by Mr. Narichania, learned senior counsel for the VML is concerned, it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that merely having a just or valid claim or a prima facie case, will not entitle the plaintiff to an order of attachment before judgment, unless he also establishes that the defendant is attempting to remove or dispose of his assets with the intention of defeating the decree that may be passed. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held that the purpose of Order 38 Rule 5 is not to convert an unsecured debt into a secured debt. The said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was not in respect of the powers of court under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 but was in respect of power under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 in a suit. Even otherwise, the said judgment is distinguishable in the facts of this case.
Delhi High Court Cites 56 - Cited by 1 - Y Varma - Full Document

Reliance Infratel Ltd vs Ericsson India Pvt. Ltd. And 2 Ors on 8 March, 2018

38. Supreme Court in the case of Raman Tech & Process Engg. Co. & Anr. Vs. Solanki Traders (supra) has held that where the defendant is removing or disposing his assets, an attachment before judgment will not be issued, if the plaintiff is not able to satisfy that he has a prima facie case. It is held that the plaintiff has to show prima facie ::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2018 01:43:19 ::: ppn 29 carbpl.253.18 & ors. (j).doc case that his claim is bonafide and valid and also satisfy the court that the defendant is about to remove or dispose of the whole or part of his property, with the intention of obstructing or delaying the execution of any decree that may be passed against him, before power is exercised under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC. In this case, the respondent no.1 has satisfied all these criteria laid down by the Supreme Court in the said judgment. The Reliance Group admitted the substantial part of the claim of the respondent no.1 and has boldly urged before this Court that even if the respondent no.1 succeeds, the said party would not be able to recover any amount from the Reliance Group. In my view, this type of stand taken by the Reliance Group has to be rejected at the threshold.
Bombay High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Reliance Telecom Limited vs Ericsson India Private Limited And 2 Ors on 8 March, 2018

38. Supreme Court in the case of Raman Tech & Process Engg. Co. & Anr. Vs. Solanki Traders (supra) has held that where the defendant is removing or disposing his assets, an attachment before judgment will not be issued, if the plaintiff is not able to satisfy that he has a prima facie case. It is held that the plaintiff has to show prima facie ::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2018 01:43:18 ::: ppn 29 carbpl.253.18 & ors. (j).doc case that his claim is bonafide and valid and also satisfy the court that the defendant is about to remove or dispose of the whole or part of his property, with the intention of obstructing or delaying the execution of any decree that may be passed against him, before power is exercised under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC. In this case, the respondent no.1 has satisfied all these criteria laid down by the Supreme Court in the said judgment. The Reliance Group admitted the substantial part of the claim of the respondent no.1 and has boldly urged before this Court that even if the respondent no.1 succeeds, the said party would not be able to recover any amount from the Reliance Group. In my view, this type of stand taken by the Reliance Group has to be rejected at the threshold.
Bombay High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Reliance Communications Limited vs Ericsson India Private Limited And 2 Ors on 8 March, 2018

38. Supreme Court in the case of Raman Tech & Process Engg. Co. & Anr. Vs. Solanki Traders (supra) has held that where the defendant is removing or disposing his assets, an attachment before judgment will not be issued, if the plaintiff is not able to satisfy that he has a prima facie case. It is held that the plaintiff has to show prima facie ::: Uploaded on - 09/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/03/2018 01:43:15 ::: ppn 29 carbpl.253.18 & ors. (j).doc case that his claim is bonafide and valid and also satisfy the court that the defendant is about to remove or dispose of the whole or part of his property, with the intention of obstructing or delaying the execution of any decree that may be passed against him, before power is exercised under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC. In this case, the respondent no.1 has satisfied all these criteria laid down by the Supreme Court in the said judgment. The Reliance Group admitted the substantial part of the claim of the respondent no.1 and has boldly urged before this Court that even if the respondent no.1 succeeds, the said party would not be able to recover any amount from the Reliance Group. In my view, this type of stand taken by the Reliance Group has to be rejected at the threshold.
Bombay High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

Tulsi Castings And Machining Limited & ... vs India Venture Trust & Ors on 17 July, 2014

In my prima facie view, claim made by the respondents to the learned Arbitrator is a money claim simplicitor and can not be converted into a secured debt by passing an order under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code. I am respectfully bound by the Judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Raman Tech. & Process Engg. Co. Vs. Solankhi Traders (Supra) which is ::: Downloaded on - 23/07/2014 23:49:29 ::: .. 11 .. ARBP 769 of 2014.sxw in my view directly applicable to the facts of this case.
Bombay High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 2 - R D Dhanuka - Full Document

M/S. Bookmed Technologies Pvt. Ltd vs M/S.Sri Padman Biosciences Pvt. Ltd on 20 November, 2023

g) Along with the suit, an application seeking for attachment of properties owned by the defendants 2 and 3 was https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 24/27 A. No.4998 of 2023 also filed by the plaintiff as per the provisions of Order 38 Rule 5 of CPC though the said application was subsequently withdrawn for which sufficient explanation has also been given by the learned counsel for the plaintiff by stating that in view of the judgement rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raman Tech. & Process Engg. Co. and another vs. Solanki Traders reported in 2008 2 SCC 302, the applicant /plaintiff had to withdraw the Order 38 Rule 5 application since adequate averments have not made in the affidavit filed in support of the said application.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - A Quddhose - Full Document

Xiaomi Technology India Private ... vs Union Of India on 21 April, 2023

299. We find force in the stand taken by the Union of India that the objectives of enacting the 2002 Act was the attachment and confiscation of proceeds of crime which is the quintessence so as to combat the evil of money-laundering. The second proviso, therefore, addresses the broad objectives of the 2002 Act to reach the proceeds of crime in whosoever's name they are kept or by whosoever they are held. To buttress this argument, reliance has been placed on the dictum in Attorney General for India and Raman Tech. & Process Engg. Co. v. Solanki Traders.
Karnataka High Court Cites 109 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next