KAMAL SINGH Vs. PINPOINT MULTI STRATEGY MASTER FUND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Appeal, the Appellant challenges the Order dtd. 5/5/2026, passed in an Interim Application filed in the Suit ( 'impugned Order '). The impugned Order directs the Appellant to disclose, on oath, details of all assets, bank accounts, bank statements, income tax returns and any alleged alienation thereof from the commencement of the New York proceedings. The order further restrains the Appellant from dealing with or creating third party rights in respect of any asset allegedly owned or controlled by him, whether directly or indirectly.

(2.) Mr. J. P. Sen, learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that, the direction contained in the impugned Order for disclosure is vague, as neither the Suit nor the Interim Application identifies the date from which the N. Y. litigation commenced. He submitted that, the disclosures ought to apply prospectively and not retrospectively.

(3.) He relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of L. K. Prabhu vs. K. T. Mathew reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2577, to submit that the property sought to be attached must belong to the Defendant on the date of institution of the Suit; property already transferred prior thereto cannot be attached. Compelling disclosure of property transferred before the suit 's institution, he argued, serves no legal purpose where attachment itself would be unavailable.