Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.19 seconds)Yenamala Chandra Reddy vs Nuvvula Chandramouli Naidu And Ors. on 21 January, 1991
13. A Division Bench of this Court in Y. Chandra Reddy v. N. Chandramouli Naidu, , clarified the scope of the order of conditional attachment under Order 38, Rule 5(3) of CPC. This Court held that, the Court by reason of its power under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5(3) can order conditional attachment 'also' along with a show-cause notice to be issued under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5(1) of CPC. The Court can adopt the first part of Form No. 5, and in such a event, it may be necessary for the Court to hear the defendant
before issuing such a notice. It is also open the Court to adopt both the first and the second parts of Form No. 5, without issuing notice and direct the Bailiff to attach the property straight-away, if the defendant fails to comply with the first part of the Form. In the latter case, the order will not be one of 'conditional attachment'. However, if the defendant conies to Court and satisfies the Court, it will be open to the Court to withdraw such conditional attachment under Order XXXVIII, Rule 6(2). The above interpretation of the provisions seems to us to be in harmony with the intention of the Legislature. In any event, Sub-rule (4) of Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 does not come into play at the stage of ordering conditional attachment. No order of conditional attachment can be declared as valid on account of the Court not following the procedure under Order XXXVIIII Rule 5(1) CPC.
Section 22 in The Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
1