SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

SARDAR ALI KHAN
State Bank of India, HAL, Hyd. – Appellant
Versus
G. A. Naidu – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Mr. A Krishna Murthy, Advocate for the Petitioner;
Mr. T Anantha Babu, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Sec. 151 Order 21 Rules 46 & 46-A and Order 38 Rules 5(1)(a) — Suit by Stale Bank of India for recovery of amount taken as a loan — Application under Order 38 Rule 5 read with Order 21 Rule 46 and Sec. 151 for attachment before Judgment by a prohibitory order to State Bank of Hyderabad with which the defendant opened an account and has been depositing Cheques — Cannot be ordered as the defendant Company has no intention to dispose of its assets — State Bank of Hyderabad with which the defendant opened account cannot be treated as a garnishee under Order 21 Rule 46-A of C.P.C.

Held :

The provisions of Order 21 Rule 46 CPC which deal with the question arising out of execution of decrees and orders have been made applicable to the orders issued for attachment before judgment also. Therefore, it cannot be said that the provisions of Order 21 Rule 46 CPC, cannot be invoked in case a valid order for attachment has been made by the Court. However, it is to be seen that Order 21 Rule 46-A CPC deals with the question of a notice to garnishee. It is clear from Rule 46-A that a notice to the garnishee to pay such debt can be issued only when the debt is due by the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top