Interim restraint over property requires a definite established claim; disputed liabilities under a consent order are not enough.

A consent order may be interpreted and enforced, but interim restraint or attachment over property cannot be granted on the basis of an unascertained or disputed monetary claim. The claimed liability and inter se obligations remained unresolved, and the applicants had not established a definite decretal debt or proven entitlement. Because the alleged liability still required determination and quantification, and the applicants were not shown to be creditors facing fraudulent dissipation of assets, extraordinary interim protection was refused. The distinction between attachment and injunction was material, and neither remedy could be used to secure a unilateral calculation of a claim before entitlement was definitively established.

---

---

Issues: Whether interim restraint or attachment could be granted against the properties of one group for alleged monetary liabilities arising under a consent order when the liabilities and inter se obligations had not yet been definitively interpreted or quantified.

Analysis: The consent order was treated as enforceable and capable of interpretation and implementation, but the claim asserted by the applicants had not been established as a definite decretal liability. The order contemplated reciprocal and corresponding obligations, and the questions of liability, indemnity, and quantification still required determination. In the absence of a definite claim or proved entitlement, and since the applicants were not shown to be creditors facing a fraud-related disposal of property, the extraordinary relief of restraint over the respondents' properties could not be granted at the interim stage. The distinction between attachment and injunction was also material, because neither could be used to secure an unascertained claim against property merely on the applicants' unilateral calculation.

Conclusion: Interim relief by way of restraint or attachment was not warranted, and the applicants were not entitled to the requested interim protection.

Final Conclusion: The consent order remained capable of being worked out in the main proceeding, but no interim interference with the respondents' properties was justified until the alleged liabilities were definitively established.

Ratio Decidendi: A consent order may be interpreted and enforced, but interim restraint against property cannot be granted on the basis of an unascertained or disputed monetary claim unless a definite entitlement is first established.

---