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

1998 Supreme(Cal) 18

UMESH C.BANERJEE, SIDHESWAR NARAYAN
POPULAR JUTE EXCHANGE LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
MURLIDHAR RATANLAL EXPORTS LTD. – Respondent


UMESH CHANDRA BANERJEE, J.

( 1 ) 'mareva' Injunction is an established feature of English Law and the English Court has been categorical enough to record that there should not be any hesitation in the matter of such a grant where it appears likely that the plaintiff would recover judgment against the defendant for a certain or approximate sum and there is reason to believe that the defendant has the assets within the jurisdiction to meet the judgment but may deal with the same, so that they would not be available or traceable when the judgement is given against him. One of the basic criteria for the grant of Mareva Injunction is that the assets must be located within the jurisdiction to confer jurisdiction on the Court to grant a Mareva injunction. Be it noted that this concept of grant of Mareva Injunction is not different from the power of the High Court to grant interlocutory or final order of an injunction and under tis general power of jurisdiction to grant an ex parte injunction the English Court has developed a principle that the court has power to restrain the defendant from removing assets from the jurisdiction pending the trial of action whenever it was just and convenie































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