Skip to main content

Difference between Temporary Injunctions and Attachment before judgment

In PRABHA SURANA vs JAIDEEP HALWASIYA, the Calcutta High Court settled the difference between Temporary Injunctions and Attachment before judgment 

The court observed that a distinction should be drawn between the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 1 (Temporary Injunctions) and Order XXXVIII Rule 5 (Attachment before judgment). Order XXXIX Rule 1 contemplates temporary relief to a petitioner on an imminent risk to the property in dispute in the suit being wasted by certain acts of the respondent. If the Court finds from the materials before it, that the respondent intends to cause injury to the petitioner in the interregnum including by causing damage to, alienating, selling or removing the property, the Court is empowered to pass orders to prevent the property from being dealt with in such manner or in any way which is prejudicial to the petitioner until the suit is disposed of or until further orders are passed by the Court. The Court has the option to pass orders as it deems fit and on the satisfaction that circumstances warranting preservation of the property exist till the matter advances beyond the preliminary stage.

Order XXXVIII Rule 5 applies at a later stage in a suit where the petitioner seeks to execute a decree. The section, by its very description, applies to an order which lends finality to the suit and aims at preserving the state of affairs after the interim stage in the suit is over. The primary intention of the Court at this stage is to secure the petitioner against the respondent from disposing of or removing his property from the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court.

While both sections intend to give a protective cover to the petitioner at the time of institution of and during pendency of the suit in terms of preserving the property which would afford relief to the petitioner in real terms, there is an important distinction in the nature of the property contemplated under the provisions. Under Order XXXIX Rule 1, the property sought to be preserved is ‘property in dispute in a suit’, whereas, it is the respondent’s property under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 - the words used are ‘his property’ following specific reference to ‘…the respondent, with intent to obstruct or delay…’. The distinction reinforces the need to preserve the suit property till final orders are passed in the former and to secure the petitioner for facilitating execution of a decree in the latter. Although, the terms ‘order’ and ‘decree’ can be interchangeably used depending on the nature of the application, the thrust of the two provisions, read together, is saving the suit property till the right of the petitioner is established to proceed with the suit and to save the petitioner from the decree – or the possibility thereof – being frustrated once the suit nears culmination.


Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more