REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

K.Sadasivan Appellant

V/S

Surendradas Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

COURT IN HARA GOVINDA DAS V. DHUR AND CO. [REFERRED TO]
GOVERNORS OF CAMPBELL COLLEGE,BELFAST VS. COMMISSIONER OF VALUATION FOR NORTHERN IRELAND [REFERRED TO]
QUEBEC RAILWAY,LIGHT,HEAT AND POWER COMPANY LIMITED V. VANDRY AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
MAHENDRA NARAIN SAHA AND OTHERS V. GURUDAS BAIRAGI AND ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
UNION BANK OF INDIA,VISAKAPATNAM V. M/S.ANDHRA TECHNOCRAT INDUSTRIES [REFERRED TO]
KEDAR NATH V. TEJPAL [REFERRED TO]
ASWINI KUMAR GHOSE INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY CALCUTTA HIGH COURT INTERVENERS VS. ARABINDA BOSE [REFERRED TO]
SENIOR ELECTRIC INSPECTOR VS. LAXMINARAY CHOPRA [REFERRED TO]
SOORAJMULL NAGARMULL VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
ISHWAR SINGH BINDRA VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
GANGA BAI VS. VIJAY KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
NASIRUDDIN RAMAI VS. STATE TRANSPORT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL:STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
R S NAYAK PADMAKAR BALKRISHNA SAMANT VS. A R ANTULAY:ABDUL REHMAN ANTULAY [REFERRED TO]
RAM ADHAR SINGH DEAD VS. BANSI DEAD [REFERRED TO]
APHALI PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
HYDERABAD ASBESTOS CEMENT PRODUCT VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. HANSOLI DEVI [REFERRED TO]
SURYA DEV RAI VS. RAM CHANDER RAI [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. INDSWIFT LABORATORIES LTD [REFERRED TO]
UNION BANK OF INDIA VISAKAPATNAM VS. ANDHRA TECHNOCRAT INDUSTRIES [REFERRED TO]
R S CAMBRAY AND CO P LTD VS. BISHNU BANERJEE [REFERRED TO]
PARSED MASTER VS. ANTONY [REFERRED TO]
VARGHESE VS. VARGHESE [REFERRED TO]
R S PILLAI VS. M L PERATCHI ALIAS SOLVI [REFERRED TO]
SASEENDRAN VS. SADANANDAN [REFERRED TO]
OM PRAKASH VS. MOHAMMAD ISHAQ [REFERRED TO]
OHENE MOORE VS. AKESSEH TAYEE [REFERRED TO]
RADHEY SHYAM AND ORS. VS. CHHABI NATH AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Interpretation of Order XXXVIII Rules 5 and 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, "the Code") by two Division Benches of this Court in Pareed Master v. Antony (1987 (2) KLT 649) and Saseendran v. Sadanandan (2003 (3) KLT 680) is that Order XXXVIII Rule 6(2) of the Code cannot apply to a case where there was no conditional attachment of the whole or portion of the property. In other words, sub-rule (2) of Order XXXVIII Rule 6 of the Code is not intended to cover cases, where the defendant successfully showed cause against attachment before judgment, in which no conditional attachment order under Order XXXVIII Rule 5(3) of the Code has been granted. It was further observed that Order XXXVIII Rule 6(2) of the Code contemplates cases where conditional attachment before judgment was once ordered and later withdrawn when the defendant had shown sufficient cause. On a conjoint reading of the above provisions with Order XLIII Rule 1(q) of the Code, the above view was adopted. Another Division Bench, doubting correctness of the aforementioned view, referred the case for consideration by an appropriate Bench. Hence the matter is placed before us for determination.

(2.) We heard Sri. Arun V.G ., learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. M.R.Rajesh, learned counsel for the respondent.

(3.) Before going into the rival contentions, we shall extract the relevant provisions for completion of the records. Order XXXVIII deals with arrest and attachment before judgment. Under the sub-heading, "Attachment before judgment", Rules 5 to 13 are placed. For our purpose, we shall extract Order XXXVIII Rules 5 and 6 of the Code as they now exist.

Click here to view full judgment.

K.SADASIVAN Vs. SURENDRADAS

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address