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

1981 Supreme(Mad) 328

VENUGOPAL
G. Kuppathi Mudaliar – Appellant
Versus
V. Murugesan – Respondent


Advocates:
M. N. Padmanabhan, for Petitioner; K. N. Balasubramaniam, for Respondent.

Judgement

ORDER :- The plaintiff is the petitioner before this court and the defendant is the respondent. The petitioner filed a suit against the respondent for recovery of certain amounts due on account of dealings which the respondent had with the petitioner. The petitioner filed a petition under O.38, R.5, C.P.C. for attachment before judgement of the amounts due to the respondent and lying with the Executive Engineer-cum-Administrative Officer, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Vellore. Attachment before judgement was ordered by the vacation court, without asking for security from the respondent or asking the respondent to show cause why he should not furnish security as contemplated under O.38, R.5(1), C.P.C. On contest by the respondent, the court held that the attachment effected is void as it has been done in non-compliance of O.38, R. 5(1), C.P.C. and there are no supporting affidavits from third parties to show that the respondent is attempting to defraud his creditors by any overt act. On this finding, the attachment effected was raised. The petitioner has hence filed the civil revision petition before this court.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though 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