CHELSEA MILLS Vs. CHORUS GIRL INC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two applications have arisn out of a suit fled by the plaintiffs numbering three for recovery of about Rs. 6 lacs from the defendant. JA 9496189 is by the plaintiff and is under Order 38, Rule, I, Order 39, Rules I and 2 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code'). The other application JA 82/90 is by the defendant and is under Order 38 Rule I and Section 151 of the Code.

(2.) Plaintiff No. 3 is stated to be the proprietor of plaintiffs No. 1 and 2. Defendant is styled as Chorus Girl Inc., New York, U.S'.A. and has been sued through Mrs. Nina Batra without describing as to what she is in the defendant company. The whole body of the plaint does not say as to what position Mrs. Nina Batra is holding in the defendant, though it is stated that orders had been placed on behalf of the defendant by Mrs. Nina Batra for supply of certain readymade garments by the plaintiffs to the defendant. The suit is for recovery of price of the goods and interest accrued thereon.

(3.) Along with the suit, the plaintiffs filed an application (IA 9496189) in which apart from referring to the averments made in the plaint it was stated that the defendant had no inten, lion to pay the balance oustanding amount which was evident from the conduct of Mrs. Nina Batra inasmuch as though she was presently in Delhi, was avoiding to talk to the plaintiffs and her attitude was even abusive. It was stated that plaint's seriously apprehended that defendant will be leaving India on any day and would never return thereafter. It was also mentioned in this application that intention of the defendant was to delay the claim of the plaintiff and in order to delay the process of the court and obstruct its proceedings the defendant was planning to leave the country within a day or two without paving the outstanding amount due to the plaintiffs from the defendant. Reference was also made to the Foreign Exchange, Regulation Act to contend that plaintiffs might have to face prosecution or some penal action under that Act. The application, however, did not specify for what fault of the plaintiffs., if any, action could have been taken under that Act. It was, therefore, . prayed that defendant be restrained from leaving the country for' which her arrest before judgment was necessary, The plamtiffs prayed that warrants of arrest directing the arrest of Mrs. Nina Batra be issued directing her to be present in court to show cause as to why she could not furnish security for her appearance and/or in the alternative she be directed to deposit the suit amount in court. There was yet another alternative prayer that her passport be seized and she be restrained from leaving India. The suit and the aforesaid application were filed on 28th December, 1989. On this day itself the court while issuing summons in the suit passed the following orders on. the application :