Attachment before judgment: B.I.F.R. pendency, stamping objections, and asset disclosure do not bar interim security relief.

Pendency of B.I.F.R. proceedings did not operate as a complete bar to interim security and attachment before judgment where the claim also covered amounts due from other entities controlled by the defendants. A guarantee objected to as insufficiently stamped could still be considered at the interim stage, with any stamping defect to be dealt with later by impounding and recovery of duty if necessary. The Court also recognised power under Order 38 Rule 5(2) to require disclosure of assets where security is not furnished, enabling effective attachment before judgment when the exact property is not known.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the pendency of proceedings before the B.I.F.R. barred consideration of the motion for security and attachment before judgment in respect of the entire claim; (ii) whether a guarantee said to be insufficiently stamped could be relied upon at the interim stage for obtaining attachment before judgment; (iii) whether the Court had power, in proceedings for attachment before judgment, to direct the defendants to disclose their assets.

Issue (i): Whether the pendency of proceedings before the B.I.F.R. barred consideration of the motion for security and attachment before judgment in respect of the entire claim.

Analysis: The claim included amounts advanced not only to the company before the B.I.F.R. but also to other companies and a partnership firm controlled by the defendants. Even assuming that proceedings relating to the B.I.F.R. company could not continue, the balance claim remained substantial. The Court therefore treated the motion as maintainable at least to secure the remaining claim and did not accept the objection as a complete bar to consideration of interim relief.

Conclusion: The B.I.F.R. objection did not prevent the Court from granting interim security and attachment relief in respect of the balance claim.

Issue (ii): Whether a guarantee said to be insufficiently stamped could be relied upon at the interim stage for obtaining attachment before judgment.

Analysis: The Court held that at the stage of interim relief, the document could be looked into. If it was ultimately found to be insufficiently stamped when produced in evidence, the Court could impound it and recover the proper duty. The alleged stamping defect could not be used to defeat consideration of interim protection at that stage.

Conclusion: The guarantee could be relied upon for interim relief despite the objection as to stamping.

Issue (iii): Whether the Court had power, in proceedings for attachment before judgment, to direct the defendants to disclose their assets.

Analysis: The Court read Order 38 Rule 5(2) as conferring power to require security and, where security is not furnished, to direct the defendant to place necessary property at the disposal of the suit. It further held that the rule contemplates cases where the plaintiff does not know the precise property to be attached, and that in such cases the Court may require disclosure of assets so that attachment can be effected.

Conclusion: The Court had power to direct disclosure of assets in proceedings for attachment before judgment.

Final Conclusion: The motion was disposed of by directing the defendants to furnish security, failing which they were required to disclose assets, with consequential liberty to the plaintiffs to seek attachment before judgment.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings for attachment before judgment, the Court may rely on the claimant's document at the interim stage, may require security even where part of the claim is arguably affected by B.I.F.R. proceedings, and may direct disclosure of assets under Order 38 Rule 5(2) so that attachment can be effectively secured.

---