Operative attachment over company property prevailed despite later contracts and an authority challenge to the undertaking.

Earlier company court orders were treated as creating an operative attachment over the suit property, and that attachment remained binding because it was never vacated or modified. Later review and revival efforts did not dislodge that position, so the property continued to be available for action by the Official Liquidator. Agreements executed in 2002 and 2003 could not override the prior attachment, and authorities dealing with earlier contractual rights were found inapplicable. The plea that the company representative lacked authority was also rejected, as the company had itself invited the Court to act on the undertaking and sought the benefit of the arrangement.

---

---

Issues: Whether the suit property remained under attachment pursuant to the earlier company court orders and could be proceeded against by the Official Liquidator, and whether the appellants could avoid those orders on the ground that the undertaking was unauthorised or that they had acquired contractual rights later in time.

Analysis: The earlier orders of 1998 were read together and held to have placed the property under an operative attachment which was never vacated or modified. The Court found that the subsequent review and revival proceedings failed, giving finality to that position. The agreements relied upon by the appellants were entered into in 2002 and 2003, much after the attachment order, so the authorities dealing with contracts preceding attachment did not assist them. The Court also held that the plea of lack of authority in the company representative could not be accepted in the circumstances, since the company had itself invited the Court to act on the undertaking and had sought the benefit of the arrangement.

Conclusion: The attachment was binding and enforceable against the suit property, and the appellants' challenge failed.

---