Back
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
Unimexx Builders And Developers – Appellant
Versus
Nand Kishore Bindra – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. (Oral)
CM(M) 1334/2022
1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugns the order dated 11.04.2022 passed by the ADJ-02, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi (`Trial Court') in CS DJ 8586/16 titled as "Nand Kishore Bindra v. M/s Unimexx Builders And Developers Pvt. Ltd." whereby, the Trial Court in exercise of its power under Section 94 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (`CPC') has attached a bank account No. 603620110000748, Bank of India, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi in the name of M/s Unimexx Builders Pvt. Ltd.
1.1. The Petitioner herein is the defendant and the Respondent herein is the plaintiff in the civil suit.
1.2. The civil suit has been filed for recovery of possession, mesne profits and maintenance charges. The relationship between the parties is admittedly of landlord and tenant.
1.3. The parties admit that the possession of the property bearing flat No. 301-A, Surya Mansion-1, Kaushlaya Park, Hauz Khas, New Delhi (`suit property') has been recovered by the Respondent on 15.10.2014 during the pendency of the suit proceedings.
1.4. It is the contention of the Respondent that the Petiti
A court may order a defendant to furnish security to prevent them from obstructing enforcement of potential judgments, contingent upon establishing a prima facie case.
Satisfaction of the Court is a pre-requisite for grant of conditional attachment under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 of CPC. Failure to comply with the requirements of Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 of CPC renders th....
The Court emphasized the application of procedural rules under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to protect the interests of parties in a rent dispute.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of securing the interest of the appellants and the need for proper adjudication of claims and counter-claims before the arbitrator.
The court emphasized the stringent requirements for granting an attachment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC, highlighting the need for a prima facie showing of the defendant's intent to obstruct or del....
Attachment must comply with jurisdictional rules; absence qualifies as an irregularity, not an automatic nullity unless substantial injury is proven.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
