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

KERALA HIGH COURT
P.N. Ravindran and R. Narayana Pisharadi, J.
Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd. —Appellant
versus
St. Antony’s Trading Company
and Ors. —Respondents
FAO No.211 of 2017
Decided on 19.1.2018

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Sri. M.R. Hariraj, Smt. G. Bindu, Smt. M.K. Leela and Sri. K. Rajagopal, Advocates
For the Respondent Nos.7 and 8:Sri. M.V. Balagopal, Advocate
For the Respondent Nos.1 to 4:Sri. A.V. Thomas, Sr. Advocate, Sri. Leo George, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
Action by attachment under Order 38 Rule 5 of CPC is preventive and not punitive.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 38, Rule 5—Attachment before judgment—Sole object behind order levying attachment before judgment is to give an assurance to plaintiff that decree, if passed, would be satisfied—It is a sort of guarantee against decree becoming infructuous for want of property—Action by attachment under Order 38 Rule 5 of Code is preventive and not punitive. (Para 11)

       (B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 38, Rule 5—Attachment before judgment—Vague and general allegations that defendant is about to dispose of property or remove it beyond jurisdiction of court, unsupported by particulars, would not be sufficient compliance with the rule—Mere vague or evasive allegations in affidavit do not serve the purpose—Plaintiff should precisely state in the affidavit grounds on which he entertains belief or apprehension that defendant is about to dispose of his property or to remove the property so as to obstruct or delay execution of decree—Mere verbatim reproduction of grievances in affidavit would not be sufficient—Attachment before judgment is not to be granted on a mere assertion by plaintiff that defendant is attempting to dispose of whole or part of his property or to remove whole or any part of his property from jurisdiction of court—Court has to satisfy itself on the basis of materials and its satisfaction shall be reflected in order. (Para 12)

       Result: Appeal allowed.

       

JUDGMENT

R. Narayana Pisharadi, J.—Attachment before judgment is a drastic action in law. Time and again this Court has reminded the lower courts that the power under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure shall be exercised only with circumspection. But, this is a case in which the court below has exercised such power mechanically.

2. The appellant is the first defendant in the suit filed by the first respondent firm and its partners in the Sub Court, Ernakulam. The appellant is a company and it challenges the order passed against it by that court for attachment before judgment of the property held by it as a lessee.

3. The suit is filed by the first respondent firm and its partners as indigent persons for recovery of an amount of Rs.4,11,18,656/- from the appellant company and its directors. The first respondent firm has also claimed an amount of Rs.13,79,60,977/- as damages from the appellant company. The sum and substance of the case set out in the suit by the first respondent firm is that it was a dealer of Skoda cars manufactured by the appellant company and that it incurred huge loss on account of various acts done by the appellant company in violation of the dealership agreement.

4. The first respondent filed an application as I.A.No.6112 of 2016 under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) for attachment of the property shown in the schedule of that application. In the affidavit filed by the managing partner of the first respondent firm along with that application, it is stated that enquiries made by him reveal that the only asset of the appellant company is the property shown in the schedule of the application and that the appellant company and its directors are taking hasty steps to encumber the property with a view to cause obstruction and delay in the execution of the decree that may be passed in the suit. Therefore, the first respondent firm prayed for an order for attachment before judgment of the petition schedule property.

5. The lower court, in the first instance, passed an order for conditional attachment of the petition schedule property. Thereupon, the appellant company filed a counter affidavit before the court below denying the allegation that it was taking hasty steps to encumber the property. The appellant company contended that the property sought to be attached does not belong to it and that it is owned by the Government of Maharashtra and that the company is only a lessee of that property and therefore, no question of alienation of the property by the company arises. The appellant company contended that the aforesaid property has been taken on lease by it from the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation and that the application filed under Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code is not maintainable.

6. After hearing the parties, the lower court passed an order directing the appellant company and its directors to furnish sufficient security for an amount of Rs.17,90,79,700/- or to show cause for not furnishing such security. The lower court also ordered that the petition schedule property shall be placed under attachment till then. This order is challenged in the appeal.

7. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant company and also the first respondent firm.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant company contended that the company is only a lessee of the petition schedule property and that the property is owned by the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation. Learned counsel further contended that the affidavit filed by the managing partner of the first respondent firm does not contain necessary averments for passing an order for attachment before judgment and the application is not maintainable and the impugned order passed by the lower court is liable to be set aside.

9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent firm would contend that the appellant company was taking hasty steps to encumber the property


























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 Back to top