Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.17 seconds)
Bridge Track And Tower Private Limited vs Simplex Infrastructures Limited on 4 August, 2021 cites

Sunil Kakrania & Ors vs M/S. Saltee Infrastructure Ltd. & Anr on 10 July, 2009

There can be no two views that certain factual requirements have to be satisfied by a party for obtaining an order of attachment before judgment or an order of temporary injunction under Orders 38 Rule 5 and 39 Rule 1, respectively. An order for attachment is usually passed after affidavits since the threshold is higher in such cases. The Supreme Court in Raman Tech. vs. Solanki Traders; (2008) 2 SCC 302, cautioned on the drastic effect of such orders. In the present case, the petitioner does not seek an order of attachment but a restraint on the respondent from dealing with alienating its assets or creating third party rights in respect thereof. Sunil Kakrania vs. Saltee Infrastructure Ltd. & Anr.; AIR 2009 Cal 260 and Kohinoor Steel Private Limited vs. Pravesh Chandra Kapoor; AIR 2011 Cal 29 held that the petitioner would be required to make out a clear case for an order in the nature of Order XXXIX Rule I (b) which would include the defendant evincing an intention to remove or dispose of property with a view to defrauding the creditors. In Kohinoor Steel there was no averment in the plaint or the injunction application that the defendant intended or threatened to remove his property with a view to defrauding his creditors. The Division Bench found the allegations to be vague and insufficient for grant of order of attachment or 4 any order of similar effect. The Division Bench noted that apart from the allegations being vague, the only ground taken by the plaintiff was that the defendant is in a penurious condition and held that in a money suit a defendant is not required to show that he has sufficient earnings to pay off the decretal amount of the suit if ultimately decreed in the plaintiff's favour. In the present case, there are specific allegations in the petition wherein it has been averred that the respondent is threatening to frustrate the dues of the petitioner with an objective of defrauding its creditors including the petitioner. The petitioner has not prayed for interim order on the basis that the respondent is in financial distress which would call for orders as prayed for.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 9 - Cited by 8 - B Bhattacharya - Full Document

Kohinoor Steel Private Limited vs Pravesh Chandra Kapoor on 14 July, 2010

There can be no two views that certain factual requirements have to be satisfied by a party for obtaining an order of attachment before judgment or an order of temporary injunction under Orders 38 Rule 5 and 39 Rule 1, respectively. An order for attachment is usually passed after affidavits since the threshold is higher in such cases. The Supreme Court in Raman Tech. vs. Solanki Traders; (2008) 2 SCC 302, cautioned on the drastic effect of such orders. In the present case, the petitioner does not seek an order of attachment but a restraint on the respondent from dealing with alienating its assets or creating third party rights in respect thereof. Sunil Kakrania vs. Saltee Infrastructure Ltd. & Anr.; AIR 2009 Cal 260 and Kohinoor Steel Private Limited vs. Pravesh Chandra Kapoor; AIR 2011 Cal 29 held that the petitioner would be required to make out a clear case for an order in the nature of Order XXXIX Rule I (b) which would include the defendant evincing an intention to remove or dispose of property with a view to defrauding the creditors. In Kohinoor Steel there was no averment in the plaint or the injunction application that the defendant intended or threatened to remove his property with a view to defrauding his creditors. The Division Bench found the allegations to be vague and insufficient for grant of order of attachment or 4 any order of similar effect. The Division Bench noted that apart from the allegations being vague, the only ground taken by the plaintiff was that the defendant is in a penurious condition and held that in a money suit a defendant is not required to show that he has sufficient earnings to pay off the decretal amount of the suit if ultimately decreed in the plaintiff's favour. In the present case, there are specific allegations in the petition wherein it has been averred that the respondent is threatening to frustrate the dues of the petitioner with an objective of defrauding its creditors including the petitioner. The petitioner has not prayed for interim order on the basis that the respondent is in financial distress which would call for orders as prayed for.
Calcutta High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 14 - B Bhattacharya - Full Document

Adhunik Steels Ltd vs Orissa Manganese And Minerals Pvt. Ltd on 10 July, 2007

In Deccan Chronicle Holdings Limited vs. L&T Finance Limited; 2013 SCC OnLine Bom 1005; are Division Bench of the Bombay High Court relying on Adhunik Steel Ltd. vs. Orissa Manganese; 2011 5SCC 532, held that a petitioner in a Section 9 application cannot be pinned down to the rigours of every procedural provision in The Code of Civil Procedure.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 252 - P K Balasubramanyan - Full Document
1