GAYLORD RESTAURANT Vs. M. CHABBRAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUIT is for recovery of a sum of Rs. 51,000/ - by way of damages for malicious attachment. The plaint allegations are as follows : The first plaintiff firm is a registered partnership consisting of plaintiffs 2 to 5 and one Ramchand Motumal Hinduja. The firm is carrying on business as caterers at No. 36 -D Mount Road, Madras -2 and the partners of the plaintiff firm are respectable persons and men of status and financially well placed, Plaintiffs 2 to 5 are carrying on business in banking to the knowledge of the defendant who is also a close relative of the plaintiffs. Disputes arose between the plaintiffs on the one hand and the defendant on the other. The defendant instituted a suit O.S. No. 3634 of 1971 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras for recovery of a sum of Rupees 1,017/ - due by way of advertisement charges to him. In the said suit. I. A. No. 9630 of 1971 was also filed seeking an order of attachment before judgment of the movables of the first plaintiff firm. In support of this application, an affidavit was filed alleging that the first plaintiff in order to defeat and delay the creditor was negotiating to alienate the business and was about to leave the jurisdiction of the Court. An ex parte order of attachment was passed on 26 -6 -1971 directing the attachment of the movables of the first plaintiff firm at its premises No. 36 -D, Mount Road, Madras. In execution of the warrant, the defendant accompanied by the Bailiff came to the business premises of the first plaintiff on 28 -6 -1971 at 11.45 A. M. The arrival of the defendant with the bailiff shocked the plaintiffs as a result of which many enquiries by the customers came to be made. Ultimately, the entire amount mentioned in the warrant namely Rs. 1,178/ - was paid though the conditional amount of the warrant as ordered by the City Civil Court, Madras was only Rs. 500/ -. These proceedings including the false statements made in the affidavit filed in support of the Interlocutory Application No. 9630 of 1971 were taken solely out of malice with a view to cause damage to the plaintiffs. As a result of this malicious attachment the plaintiffs have suffered very much, and they estimate the damages at Rupees 51,000/ -. Hence the suit.

(2.) THE defendant filed a written statement contending that one L. C. Anand who held 45% share of Ramchand Motumal having 11% share ought to have been impleaded as parties and failure to do so would entail dismissal of the suit.

(3.) ON these pleadings, the following issues were set down for trial :