Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.18 seconds)Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Raman Tech. & Process Engg. Co. & Anr vs Solanki Traders on 20 November, 2007
11.Learned senior counsel further contended that the joint memo of
compromise entered between the parties cannot be a legal document to show
the liability and also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Rama Tech. And Process Engg. Co. and Ors. Vs. Solanki Traders in
C.A.No.6171 of 2001 reported in (2008) 2 MLJ 1058 (SC), wherein in
paragraph 5 & 6, it is held as follows:
Premraj Mundra vs Md. Maneck Gazi And Ors. on 29 January, 1951
6.A defendant is not debarred from dealing with his property
merely because a suit is filed or about to be filed against him.
Shifting of business from one premises to another premises or
removal of machinery to another premises by itself is not a
ground for granting attachment before judgment. A plaintiff
should show, prima facie, that his claim is bona fide 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 38
8/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.728 of 2020
Rule 5 C.P.C. Courts should also keep in view the principles
relating to grant of attachment before judgment (See Prem Raj
Mundra v. Md.Maneck Gazi, AIR 1951 Cal.156, for a clear
summary of the principles)."
1