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

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

When debt is bona fide disputed and the defence is a substantial one, the court will not wind up the company

In SHITAL FIBERS LTD.  vs  INDIAN ACRYLICS LIMITED, as per the respondent, appellant had made a payment of Rs.61,83,218/­. However, there was an outstanding balance of Rs.8,92,723/­ as on 28.7.2008. Since despite repeated requests, balance amount was not paid, the respondent issued a statutory notice to the appellant. The same was duly responded to. As the payment was not made despite notice being duly served on the appellant, the respondent filed the aforesaid Company Petition seeking winding up of the present appellant for its inability to pay admitted debts. The learned Company Judge vide order dated 28.9.2015 admitted the Company Petition. However, while doing so, the learned Company Judge observed, that since the appellant was an on­going concern, an opportunity should be granted to it to settle the accounts with the respondent by 31.12.2015. Only in case of failure of the settlement, the citation was directed to be published. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Cou...
Post a Comment
Read more

Abusing in-laws a ground for divorce: SC

Abusing in-laws and not allowing them to reside in the matrimonial home by a woman amounts to cruelty to her spouse, ground enough for grant of divorce, the Supreme Court has ruled while allowing an NRI's plea for legal separation from his wife. A bench of Justices Vikaramajit Sen and A M Sapre said such incidents could not be termed as "wear and tear" of family life as held by Madras High Court which had said that a couple must be prepared to face such situations in matrimonial relationship. The NRI had filed a divorce petition alleging that his wife was abusive to his family members and did not allow his parents and siblings to stay in his house when they visited the US. Referring to an incident, the husband told the court that his wife had once locked him and his sister out of the house and abused them saying they belonged to a 'prostitute family'. She refused to allow her sister-in-law to enter the house and even lodged a police complaint against her hu...
4 comments
Read more