BHORUKA STEEL LIMITED Vs. MISC LIMITED BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDER a contract, the respondent herein appears to have supplied imported scrap steel to the petitioner as per a scheme for making into rods, wires etc. , for selling in open market and to pay the value of the scrap to the respondent. It is alleged that the petitioner has not accounted for the steel supplied from 22. 9. 1995 to 27. 11. 1995 in a total quantity of 39,99,220 metric tones and also not paid the value of the same. Hence, the respondent filed a petition under Sections 3 of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as ?the Ordinance?) seeking attachment of the properties of the petitioner. Accordingly, the Court passed attachment order. The petitioner filed I. A. V for dismissal of the petition filed by the respondent and for dissolution of the order attaching the properties. The Court by its order dated 7. 9. 1999 dismissed I. A. V and ordered continuance of interim attachment of properties. This revision petition is filed questioning the legality and correctness of the said order.

(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the order under challenge. While the learned Counsel for the respondent sought to justify the order, learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued against the order and not only prayed for setting aside the order under revision but also prayed for dismissal of the petition filed by the respondent in the District Court.

(3.) IN order to appreciate the contention of Mr. C. V. Nagesh, learned counsel for the petitioner that Section 3 of the Ordinance has no application to the facts of the case and hence the attachment of property could not have been made, it is necessary to look into the relevant portion of the said provision and it reads thus:-