Injunction and attachment before judgment require a real creditor link and strong risk of recovery being frustrated.

An injunction, attachment before judgment, or receivership under Order XXXIX Rule 1(b) CPC requires the applicant to show a real creditor relationship with the person whose property is targeted and a strong basis for apprehending frustration of recovery. On the facts, the plaintiff failed to establish any substantive claim against the second defendant or any enforceable link to that property, which was already subject to prior security interests. The asserted connection was found too tenuous, and the claimed refund arrangement displaced the original investment narrative. The ex parte relief was therefore disproportionate, and the appointment of a receiver or special officer was unwarranted; the order vacating that relief was affirmed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaintiff was entitled to an order of injunction, attachment, or receivership against the second defendant's property under Order XXXIX Rule 1(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, on the basis of its claim against the first defendant.

Analysis: The plaintiff failed to establish any substantive claim against the second defendant or any creditor relationship with respect to its property. The material before the Court showed that the project property was already subject to prior security interests and the plaintiff's asserted link with that property was, at best, tenuous and then snapped when the alleged refund arrangement superseded the original investment narrative. The Court held that an injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1(b) cannot be granted unless the applicant shows that it is a creditor of the person whose property is sought to be affected and that an attachment before judgment is justified only where the claim is unimpeachable and there is a real likelihood of frustration of recovery. The ex parte order had been disproportionate, and the appointment of a receiver or special officer on such material was unwarranted.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was not entitled to any injunction, attachment, or receiver order against the second defendant's property, and the order vacating the ex parte relief was rightly affirmed.

---