Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.17 seconds)W. Pappammal vs I. Chidambaram on 18 October, 1983
6. Ratnam, J. who considered the validity of those orders held on the facts of the case that the petition for attachment did not even contain the necessary particulars. He held that the provisions of Order 38, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure were not complied with and the notice in that case was not issued in the proper form. He held that the attachment in that case was void and set aside the order of the Court below. While discussing the law on the subject, he observed thus:
P. Ramaswamy vs Dhandayuthapani Finance, Sankari on 15 April, 1986
The prayer in the petition filed in that case for attachment was itself one for attachment before judgment, if the defendant failed to furnish proper security after notice. In spite of that prayer, the Court passed a rolled-up order directing attachment on failure on the part of the respondent to offer security for a sum of Rs. 50,000 That order was made even before notice was issued to the respondent. Consequently, the learned Judge held that the order was not valid as it did not satisfy the provisions of Order 38, Rule 5, Code of Civil Procedure. Neither the decision of Ratnam, J. nor that of Sathiadev, J. would apply to the facts of this case. The facts in those two cases have no resemblance to the facts of the present case.
1