You are on page 1of 12

Under Order 38 Rule 1

Under Order 38 Rule 1 of the Code the court, if satisfied by affidavit or otherwise, that the
defendant was about to leave India under circumstances affording reasonable probability that the
plaintiff would or might thereby be obstructed or delayed in the execution of any decree that
might be passed against the defendant in the suit could issue a. warrant to arrest the defendant
and bring him before the court to show cause why he should not furnish security for his
appearance. The proviso says that defendant shall not be arrested if he pays to the officer
entrusted with the execution of the warrant any sum specified in the warrant as sufficient to
satisfy the plaintiffs claim; and such sum shall be held in deposit by the court until the suit is
disposed of or until further order of the court (Mschelska Mills .Mothers v. Chorus Girl Inc).2
Under different rules of this Order 38, vast powers have been vested in the Court in relation to
the defendant as well as the property in suit, or both. Attachment before judgment is one of the
known concepts (Sony India Ltd. v.. Commissioner of Income Tax and Addl. Commissioner
of Income Tax, Range-9).3
Under this Order, at any stage of the suit where the Court is satisfied that the defendants with an
intention to delay or to avoid any process of Court or obstruct or delay the decree that may be
passed against the defendant, the defendant has absconded or left the limitations of the
jurisdiction of the court, is about to do so or has disposed of or removed his property or any part
thereof under the jurisdiction of the Court, the court could issue a warrant of arrest with a
direction that such defendant be brought before the Court and be directed to furnish security
subject to such terms and conditions as the court may deem fit and proper.
Under Order 38, Rule 1 an extraordinary relief is given to the plaintiff, namely, in appropriate
case where the court finds a strong prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff and if the Court is
satisfied that the defendant is likely to defeat the decree in future as and when it is passed, then
the Court shall grant attachment before judgment even before final adjudication of the claim of
the plaintiffs, hence it is an extraordinary relief given to the plaintiff by the Court (Vareed Jacob
v. Sosamma Geevarghese).4
The remedy of an attachment before judgment is certainly extraordinary. If granted, it casts an
obligation on the party against whom it is made, even before he is heard in defence to the suit.

The purpose of the rule is to safeguard the right of the plaintiff in the event of his getting a
decree in his favour and to prevent a fraudulent defendant from defeating the decree. It is clear
that the court has to act with the utmost circumspection and with maximum care and caution
before issuing an order of attachment. Otherwise, it would become a weapon of oppression in the
hands of unscrupulous plaintiffs (V.K. Nataraja Gounder v. S.A. Bangaru Reddiar).
Provisions of Rule 1 of Order 38 of the Code being stringent have to be strictly construed. A bare
reading would show that an order under this provision could be made only against the
defendant and against no one else. Now, if under Section 56 of the Code the court shall not
order the arrest or detention in civil prison of a woman in execution of a decree for the payment
of money, it cannot certainly order her arrest in a suit filed for recovery of money where a decree
is yet to be passed. A woman cannot be arrested or detained in civil prison under Rule 1 of Order
38 of the Code (Mschelska Mills Mothers v. Chorus Girl Inc.). Under Sub-rule (b) of Order 38 a
foreigner, simply because he is a foreigner, and a decree might be passed against him, might face
arrest and the necessity of furnishing security, because he does not reside in India. If it appears to
the Court that the claim of plaintiff is reasonably arguable to a certain extent, that the defendant
is a foreigner who is about to leave India, and that the decree if passed, might be delayed in
execution because of the residence abroad of the defendant, the Court would have jurisdiction to
issue a warrant of arrest and maintain it until security is furnished. It is noteworthy, that this
jurisdiction to issue warrant and call for security, is vested with the Court in regard to
foreigners, just as it is vested with the Court in regard to dishonest and fraudulent Indian
defendants, although the foreigner might be a man of blemish less finance and character,
yet, because he is a foreigner, and because the decree against him will have to be
transmitted abroad for execution, the Court is vested with the jurisdiction to call for
security. This jurisdiction has to be appropriately exercised in all cases which come before
the Court (Stephen Commerce Pvt. Ltd. v. Owners and Parties in Vessel M.T. Zaima
Navard).7
Case Cited
1. Subs. by Act No. 2 of 1951.
2. Mschelska Mills Mothers v. Chorus Girl Inc. AIR1991Delhi129.

3. Sony India Ltd. v.. Commissioner of Income Tax and Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax,
Range-9 2005 (83) DRJ 75.
4. Vareed Jacob v. Sosamma Geevarghese (2004)6SCC378: AIR2004SC3992.
5. V.K. Nataraja Gounder v. S.A. Bangaru Reddiar AIR1965Mad212.
6. Mschelska Mills Mothers v. Chorus Girl Inc. AIR1991Delhi129.
7. Stephen Commerce Pvt. Ltd. v. Owners and Parties in Vessel M.T. Zaima Navard
AIR1999Cal64.

Attachment before judgment


Scope and Object. The object of the provision for attachment before judgment is to prevent any
attempt on the part of the defendant to defeat the realisation of decree that may be passed against
him (Padam v. State).1 Attachment before judgment is levied where the court on an application
of the plaintiff is satisfied that the defendant, with intent to obstruct or delay the execution of any
decree that may be passed against him
(a) is about to dispose of the whole or any part of his property, or
(b) is about to remove the whole or any part of his property from the local limits of the
jurisdiction of the Court (Vemulapalli Ravichandra v. Mattampalli Srinivasa Rao;
Symphony Services Corp. (India) Pvt. v. Mr. Sudip Bhattacharjee; Onkarmal v. State
Bank).2
The sole object behind the order levying attachment before judgment is to give an
assurance to the plaintiff that his decree if made would be satisfied. It is a sort of a guarantee
against decree becoming infructuous for want of property available from which the plaintiff can
satisfy the decree (Sardar Govindrao Mahadik v. Devi Sahai).3
In order to attract the provisions of Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code of Civilo Procedure, the
applicant has to make definite allegations which at least prima facie would show that the
defendant is intending to delay the passing of the decree and is removing the properties beyond
the jurisdiction of the court with an intention to frustrate the decree, if ultimately passed by the

court in favour of the plaintiff (Techno Systems Protections v. Supreme Telecommunications).4


The power under Rule 5 is extraordinary power and must sparingly be exercised with caution
else it may become a tool in the hand of a plaintiff to harrass a lawful owner (Natraja v.
Bangara; Ratan v. Howrah Motor Co.)5 and more care should be taken when granting in
favour of any person whose right to recover the money will fructify the decree in case the same
is passed on being established and so the Courts should cautiously exercise the above said
provision of law (L. V. Bhujanga Rao v. Ch. Venkateswara Rao).6
May be the provisions are stringent but where the facts and circumstances of the case makes it
apparent on record that the intention of the defendant is not bona fide and they are attempting to
frustrate the decree which is likely to be passed in favour of the plaintiff and they offend any of
the clauses to Order 38 Rule 5, the Court would normally come to the rescue of the applicant for
such safeguard.
It is not necessary that the Court must straight away pass an order of attachment before
judgment. In fact sub-rule 1 of Rule 5 of Order 38 provides that where the defendant fails to
show cause to the court then the Court would direct him to deposit in the court money or other
property sufficient to answer the claim of the plaintiff or to furnish the security (M/s. Nagpal
Steel Limited v. Arjan Dev Verma ; Techno Systems Protections v.. Supreme
Telecommunications).7 Thus, the provision of rule 5 would apply where the defendant is about
to dispose whole or part of the property and not where the property has already been disposed of
much before the filing of the suit (Subhash Bhimashankar Kalase v. State Bank of India).8
If the averments in the plaint and the documents produced in support of it, do not satisfy the
court about the existence of a prima facie case, the court will not go to the next stage of
examining whether the interest of the plaintiff should be protected by exercising power under
Order 38 Rule 5 Code of Civilo Procedure. It is well-settled that merely having a just or valid
claim or a prima facie case, will not entitle the plaintiff to an order of attachment before
judgment, unless he also establishes that the defendant is attempting to remove or dispose of his
assets with the intention of defeating the decree that may be passed (Srinivasan v. Srinivasan).9
Equally well settled is the position that even where the defendant is removing or disposing his
assets, an attachment before judgment will not be issued, if the plaintiff is not able to satisfy that

he has a prima facie case. The purpose of Order 38 Rule 5 is not to convert an unsecured debt
into a secured debt. Any attempt by a plaintiff to utilize the provisions of Order 38 Rule 5 as a
lever for coercing the defendant to settle the suit claim should be discouraged. Instances are not
wanting where bloated and doubtful claims are realised by unscrupulous plaintiffs, by obtaining
orders of attachment before judgment and forcing the defendants for out of court settlements,
under threat of attachment (Raman Tech. and Process Engg. Co. v. Solanki Traders;
Pappammal v. Chidambaram).10
Unless the ingredients of Order 38 Rule 5 of the Code are made prima facie, an order of
attachment before judgment by way of conditional attachment or otherwise cannot be made in a
mechanical and routine way (Smt. Kamla Panda v. Krishna Cloth Stores).11
The courts are expected to be careful and cautious while exercising the power under Order 38
Rule 5 of the Code (Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh v. Regal Sports Company).12
The plea under Order 38, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure itself is not conclusive during
the pendency of a suit. Nothing prevents a person from moving another application for
attachment before judgment if the circumstances change. The idea behind that application is that
the defendant may not be permitted to deal with his property making it impossible for the
plaintiff to get the fruits of the decree. The principles of constructive res judicata could
hardly apply to such proceedings (State Bank of India v. Madhya Pradesh Iron and Steels
Works Private limited).13
The court while exercising its jurisdiction under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil
Procedure is required to form a prima facie opinion at that stage. It need not go into the
correctness or otherwise of all the contentions raised by the parties (Rajendran v. Shankar
Sundaram).14
Provincial Small Cause Courts have no power to attach immovable property (See Rule 13 of this
Order). Section 46 of Civil Procedure Code concerns with execution of decrees and does not
affect the Jurisdiction of a Court of law under Order 38 Rule 5 of Civil Procedure Code to attach
before Judgment, properties lying outside the jurisdiction of the Court (Chiman Das v.
Mahadevappa; Itel Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Ind. Solders and Alloys Pvt. Ltd.).15 Property lying
outside the jurisdiction of the Court cannot at all be attached, but it can be attached by the Court

by following the provision of Section 136. An executing Court cannot directly attach a property
lying outside its jurisdiction, but it can do so by transferring the decree to the Court within whose
jurisdiction the property is situate in accordance with the provision of Section 39, the same
principle would also apply to an order for attachment before judgment as provided by Order 38,
Rules 5 and 6 (Surendra Nath Goswami v. Bansi Badan Goswami ; Begg. Dunlop and Co. v.
Jagannath; Balai Kumar Sarkar v. Bimal Chandra Sarkar).16
Stay of trial of the suit under Section 10 of this Code is no bar to exercise powers under this rule
(Baburao v. Kadarappa).17 2.
What is Attachment. The word attachment would only mean taking into the custody of the
law the person or property of one already before the court, or of one whom it is sought to bring
before it. It is used for two purposes: (i) to compel the appearance of a defendant; and (ii) to
seize and hold his property for the payment of the debt. It may also mean prohibition of transfer,
conversion, disposition or movement of attachment before judgment in terms of Order XXXVIII
of the Code of Civil Procedure and attachment for execution of a decree under Order XXI
thereof. An order of attachment before judgment passed under Order XXXVIII seeks to
safeguard the interests of plaintiff so that in the event a decree is passed, the same stands
satisfied. On the other hand, the essential part of Order XXI is to see that the process of court is
not defeated once execution starts (Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd v. Official Liquidator,
High Court of Kerala).18
3. Sub-rule 3. Where there is no prayer to order simultaneous conditional attachment, the Order
to this effect is void (Ramaswamy v. Dhanadayuthapani).19 Whenever the defendant comes
forward with proper security, there shall not be any bar to raise the attachment by accepting the
bank security in order to ensure recovery of the money covered by the suit which is likely to be
decreed in favour of the plaintiff (Madigiri Kiran Kumar v. Swarnagiri Subbamma).20
A conditional order of attachment can only be passed if the pre-condition there for provided
under Sub-rule (1) of calling upon the defendant to either furnish security or show cause why
such security should not be furnished is complied with. In terms, Order 38, Rule 5 does not
contemplate the passing of final order of attachment, but leaves it to Rule 6 under which, if the
defendant either fails to show cause why the security shall not be furnished or fails to furnish the

security as required, the Court may direct the property to be attached (Smt. Kamala Panda v.
Krishna Cloth Stores).21
4. Sub- Rule 4. Under Order 38, Rule 5(4) an order of attachment without compliance with the
provisions of sub-rule (1) will be void. So, before an order of attachment before judgment is
made, the Court must satisfy itself that the defendant is about to dispose of or remove the whole
or part of his property. Secondly, this satisfaction must be derived from material on record either
by way of affidavit or otherwise; it cannot be whimsical nor could it be illusory and it should
also be based on clear and convincing proof on enquiry that the order is needed for protection of
plaintiff. Not only that, the Court must insist upon strict proof of allegations made in affidavit. It
is only on proof positive that the defendant is, with intent to obstruct or delay the execution of
any decree that may be passed, either about to dispose of or remove the whole or any part of his
property, the Court will pass an order directing defendant within certain time to be fixed, either
to furnish security in such sum as may be specified or to appear and show cause as to why he
should not furnish security. Before the Court gives such a mandate, the condition precedent is the
satisfaction to be arrived at as stated above (Y. Vijayalak-shmiamma v. M/s. Sakinala
Lakshmaiah).22
The sine qua non for an order of Attachment before Judgment is the malafide intention of the
defendant to defeat the decree that may be passed against the plaintiff and these ingredients
should be established by the plaintiff in the affidavit filed in support of the Application (Mrs.
Chitra Chockalingam,& ors. v. Devaki Hospitals Pvt. Limited).23 Where the Court is satisfied
that allegations in the application for attachment before judgment are true, ordinarily at the first
instance only direction to furnish security within specified time or to appear and show cause why
direction to furnish security be not issued. Only in exceptional cases of hardship, simultaneous
conditional sale should be issued under sub-rule (3) of Rule 5. Without issuing any show cause
notice or direction to furnish security the order of attachment shall be illegal (Vasu v.
Narayana).24
The jurisdiction under Order 38 Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure is an extra ordinary
jurisdiction. The power conferred on the court under the said provision is a drastic and
extraordinary power, which should not be exercised mechanically or merely for the asking (Sri.
M.R. Lakshmanappa v. Sri Ramachandra Bhat).25

Unless the requirements of Order 38 Rule 5 is complied with, an order of attachment cannot be
made, as the provision is not a lever for the plaintiff to coerce the defendant to come to terms (Sri
Panduranga Brick Works v.. Gururaghavendra Foundations Pvt. Ltd.).26
An attachment before judgment is not a process to be adopted as a matter of course. The suit is
yet to be tried and the defence of the defendant is yet to be tested. The plaintiff only stands a
prima facie chance of success in the suit. At this nebulous juncture, an extraordinary relief is
being sought for by the plaintiff. This relief could be granted only if the conditions for its grant,
as per the provisions of the Code, stand satisfied. Hence utmost caution and circumspection
should guide the court. The court must advert to the provisions of the Code in this regard, and
investigate the allegations thrown against the defendant, satisfy itself that a case for attachment
before judgment has been made out and then pass the requisite order. There principles have come
to be recognized as mandate to the Court and if the Court acts in breach thereof, such an order of
the Court will have to be ignored as the result of dereliction of duty (Srinivasan, T. v. V.
Srinivasan).27
When the order of attachment is made without complying with these provisions the attachment is
void (G. Kuppathi Mudaliar v. V. Muru-gesan; Ankinapalli Obul Reddy v. Dadibathina China
Gurava Reddy; K. Mallesh Mudiraj v. C. Sudhakar; Allahabad Bank v. Shiv).28 Thus, it is clear
that both the pre-conditions must be satisfied.
For the purpose of exercise of power under Order 38, Rule 5, Code of CivilProcedure, Court is
to examine : (i) What property is about to be disposed of or removed?
(ii) Whether the same is the property of the defendant?
(iii) Whether it is the whole or part of the property? And
(iv) What is the intention of the defendant Even if all the points are answered in favour of the
plaintiff, the Court is not bound to exercise the power if it finds that the same may not factually
have the effect of obstructing or delaying the execution of the decree (Tatanagar Transport
Corporation v. Ajanta Enterprisers).29
The Court has to act with utmost circumspection and with maximum care and caution in order to
avoid the said remedy being a weapon of oppression in the hands of unscrupulous applicants

claiming the relief under Order 38, Rule 5 of Civil Procedure Code and as such it is incumbent
upon the applicants to state the grounds to prove the same on the basis of its contents by giving
the material particulars and sources of information, belief and so on. A mere verbatim copy of
the Order 38, Rule 5 of Civil Procedure Code or a mechanical repetition of the language of the
Code without an iota or substratum of truth, underlying the allegation, amounts to merely a
colourable imitation and constitute an abuse of process of the Court (UCO Bank, Madras v.
Sukra Shoe Fabric).30
Simple reproduction of the language used in Order,38, R. 5 will not meet the requirements of this
Order (Palghar Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd v. Visvesvaraya Iron and Steel Ltd).31. The sale of
properties at a gross undervalue, or benami transfers, are always good indications of an intention
to defeat the plaintiffs claim. The Court must however be very cautious about, the evidence on
these points and not rely on vague allegations (Premraj Mundra v. Md. Maneck Gazi; R.B.M.
Pati Joint Venture v. Bengal Builders).32
Where the full ingredients for invoking it are lacking in the application and the affidavits in
support thereto of plaintiff under Order 38 Rule 5, attachment before judgment order cannot be
ordered (K. C. V. Airways Ltd. v. Wg. Cdr. R.K. Blaggana; Dr. Sukhdev Singh Gambhir v. Shri
Amrit Pal Singh).33
It is well settled that an attachment, whether before or after judgment, does not create any
charge on the attached property. An attaching creditor is not a secured creditor (Mutha Subba
Rao v. Official receiver, West Godavari; Sri Rachamalla Nagi Reddy v. Sri Pasurula
Naganna).34 Where in the sworn affidavit, Managing Director of the plaintiff Company has
alleged that the defendants are delaying the payment and with a view to defeat the payment of
the amount to the Creditors including the plaintiff, defendants are making attempts to part with
their immovable and movable properties. The above averments sufficiently satisfy the
requirements under Order 38, Rule 5 of Civil Procedure Code (Sankar Sealing Systems P. Ltd. v.
Jain Motor Trading Co.).35
5. Instances where Order 38 is not applicable. Merely because the defendant attempts to sell
some of his immoveable property, while proceedings against him are pending, it does not follow
that he is disposing of the property with intent to obstruct or delay the execution of any decree

that may be passed in the suit (Nowroji Pudumjee Siradar v. Deccan Bank Ltd.).36 The mere fact
of transfer is not enough, since nobody can be prevented from dealing with his properties simply
because a suit has been filed; There must be additional circumstances to show that the transferor
is with an intention to delay or defeat the plaintiffs claim. It is open to the Court to look to the
conduct of the parties immediately before suit, and to examine the surrounding circumstances,
and to draw an inference as to whether the defendant, is about to dispose of the property, and if
so, with what intention. The Court is entitled to consider the nature of the claim and the defence
put forward. Mere removal of properties outside jurisdiction, is not enough, but where the
defendant with notice of the plaintiffs claim, suddenly begins removal of his properties outside
the Jurisdiction of the appropriate Court, and without any other satisfactory reason, an adverse
inference may be drawn against the defendant where the removal is to a foreign country, the
inference is greatly strengthened. However, the fact that the defendant, is in insolvent
circumstances or in acute financial embarrassment is a relevant circumstance, but not by itself
sufficient. That in the case of running businesses, the strictest caution is necessary and the mere
fact that a business has been closed, or that its turnover had diminished, is not enough. Mere
neglect, or suffering execution by other creditors, is not a sufficient reason for an order under
Order 38 of the Code (Premraj Mundra v. Md. Maneck Gazi; R.B.M. Pati Joint Venture v.
Bengal Builders).37 It is well settled that an order under this Order should not be passed merely
for the sake of asking or merely because of the fact that the garnishee has huge sum of money
payable to the defendant (Surender Singh Bajaj v. Kitty Steels Limited; Vantaru Chinna Subba
Rayudu v. Y. Lalitha Vani).38 Vague or general allegations that the defendant is set to transfer
the property is not sufficient ground to order attachment before judgment. -

Case Cited 1. Padam v. State, AIR 1961 SC 218 at 220 : 1961 (1) SCR 884. 2. Vemulapalli
Ravichandra v. Mattampalli Srinivasa Rao AIR 2007 AP 306; Symphony Services Corp. (India)
Pvt. v. Mr. Sudip Bhattacharjee 2008 (1) Kar LJ 24; Onkarmal v. State Bank, AIR 1992 P&H
104. 3. Sardar Govindrao Mahadik v. Devi Sahai AIR1982SC989: (1982)1SCC237. 4. Techno
Systems Protections v. Supreme Telecommunications MANU/DE/2979/2005. 5. Natraja v.
Bangara, AIR 1965 Mad 212 ; Ratan v. Howrah Motor Co. AIR 1975 Cal 180. 6. L. V. Bhujanga
Rao v. Ch. Venkateswara Rao AIR1993Mad246. 7. M/s. Nagpal Steel Limited v. Arjan Dev
Verma 1998 Vol. 2 PLR 372, Techno Systems Protections v.. Supreme Telecommunications

MANU/DE/2979/2005.

8.

Subhash

Bhimashankar

Kalase

v.

State

Bank

of

India

AIR2005Bom165. 9. Srinivasan v. Srinivasan, AIR 1985 Mad 269. 10. Raman Tech. and Process
Engg. Co. v. Solanki Traders (2008)2SCC302; Pappammal v. Chidambaram, AIR 1984 Mad 70.
11. Smt. Kamla Panda v. Krishna Cloth Stores, AIR 1989 Ori 229. 12. Sports Authority of
Andhra Pradesh v. Regal Sports Company 2008 (6) ALD 759. 13. State Bank of India v. Madhya
Pradesh Iron and Steels Works Private limited AIR1998MP93. 14. Rajendran v. Shankar
Sundaram AIR2008SC1170. 15. Chiman Das v. Mahadevappa AIR 1961 AP 417., Itel Industries
Pvt. Ltd. v. Ind. Solders and Alloys Pvt. Ltd. MANU/TN/1529/2008. 16. Surendra Nath
Goswami v. Bansi Badan Goswami AIR 1918 Cal 911; Begg. Dunlop and Co. v. Jagannath,
(1912) 16 Cal WN 402; Balai Kumar Sarkar v. Bimal Chandra Sarkar AIR1978Cal340. 17.
Baburao v. Kadarappa, AIR 1974 Mys 63. 18. Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd v. Official
Liquidator, High Court of Kerala(2006)10SCC709: AIR2007SC63 19. Ramaswamy v.
Dhanadayuthapani, AIR 1986 Mad 360. 20. Madigiri Kiran Kumar v. Swarnagiri Subbamma
AIR 2004 AP 104. 21. Smt. Kamala Panda v. Krishna Cloth Stores AIR1989Ori229. 22. Y.
Vijayalak-shmiamma v. M/s. Sakinala Lakshmaiah, AIR 1980 A.P 176. 23. Mrs. Chitra
Chockalingam,& ors. v. Devaki Hospitals Pvt. Limited MANU/TN/8717/2007. 24. Vasu v.
Narayana, AIR 1962 Ker 261. 25. Sri. M.R. Lakshmanappa v. Sri Ramachandra Bhat 2008 (4)
Kar LJ 254. 26. Sri Panduranga Brick Works v.. Gururaghavendra Foundations Pvt. Ltd. (2007)
4 MLJ 863. 27. Srinivasan, T. v. V. Srinivasan, MANU/TN/0155/1985: AIR 1985 Mad 269. 28.
G. Kuppathi Mudaliar v. V. Muru-gesan, MANU/TN/0226/1982: AIR 1982 Mad 49; Ankinapalli
Obul Reddy v. Dadibathina China Gurava Reddy 2000 ( 5 ) ALT 125, K. Mallesh Mudiraj v. C.
Sudhakar 2007 (4) ALD 369; Allahabad Bank v. Shiv, AIR 1976 All 447. 29. Tatanagar
Transport Corporation v. Ajanta Enterprisers AIR1987Ori107. 30. UCO Bank, Madras v. Sukra
Shoe Fabric AIR1992Mad293. 31. Palghar Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd v. Visvesvaraya Iron and Steel
Ltd AIR1985Kant282. 32. Premraj Mundra v. Md. Maneck Gazi, AIR 1951 Cal 156; R.B.M.
Pati Joint Venture v. Bengal Builders AIR2004Cal58 33. K. C. V. Airways Ltd. v. Wg. Cdr.
R.K. Blaggana 70 ( 1997 ) DLT 326, Dr. Sukhdev Singh Gambhir v. Shri Amrit Pal Singh AIR
2003

Delhi

280.

34.

Mutha

Subba

Rao

v.

Official

receiver,

West

Godavari

MANU/AP/0142/1965: AIR 1965 AP 52: Sri Rachamalla Nagi Reddy v. Sri Pasurula Naganna
AIR2005AP147. 35. Sankar Sealing Systems P. Ltd. v. Jain Motor Trading Co
AIR2004Mad127. 36. Nowroji Pudumjee Siradar v. Deccan Bank Ltd. AIR 1921 Bom 69. 37.

Premraj Mundra v. Md. Maneck Gazi, AIR 1951 Cal 156; R.B.M. Pati Joint Venture v. Bengal
Builders AIR2004Cal58. 38. Surender Singh Bajaj v. Kitty Steels Limited AIR 2003 AP 13,
Vantaru Chinna Subba Rayudu v. Y. Lalitha Vani 2008 (6) ALD 9.