Temporary injunction in money suits needs strict statutory grounds; inherent powers cannot replace attachment-before-judgment requirements.

In a money suit, a temporary injunction restraining alienation of the defendant's property is not justified merely on a strong prima facie claim where the property is not the subject matter of the suit. Attachment before judgment, or injunction in its nature, requires strict proof of the statutory ingredients, including specific material showing an intention to obstruct or delay execution by disposing of property or removing it from jurisdiction. General financial difficulty or apprehension of non-satisfaction is insufficient. Inherent powers cannot be used to bypass these statutory requirements or create indirect attachment relief where the rules do not permit it.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether, in a simple money suit, the defendant's property can be restrained from alienation by temporary injunction merely on the basis of a strong prima facie case; (ii) whether, in the absence of the ingredients of attachment before judgment, the court can direct security or grant injunction in the nature of attachment before judgment; (iii) whether the court can invoke inherent powers to grant such relief when the statutory requirements are not satisfied.

Issue (i): whether, in a simple money suit, the defendant's property can be restrained from alienation by temporary injunction merely on the basis of a strong prima facie case;

Analysis: The suit was only for recovery of money and the plant and machinery did not constitute the property in dispute in the suit. For that reason, the ordinary principles governing temporary injunction over property in dispute could not be used to restrain the defendant from dealing with its assets merely because the plaintiff asserted an unpaid price claim. A vague assertion that the defendant was financially distressed was not enough to justify restraint on alienation.

Conclusion: The question is answered against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.

Issue (ii): whether, in the absence of the ingredients of attachment before judgment, the court can direct security or grant injunction in the nature of attachment before judgment;

Analysis: Attachment before judgment is a drastic and extraordinary power and can be exercised only when the statutory conditions are strictly proved, including an intent to obstruct or delay execution by disposing of property or removing it from the jurisdiction. The materials before the court did not contain specific, verified facts showing such intent. Mere inability to pay debts, absence of bank balances, or a general apprehension that the decree may go unsatisfied did not satisfy the rule. The plaintiff therefore failed to make out a case for security or attachment before judgment.

Conclusion: The question is answered against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.

Issue (iii): whether the court can invoke inherent powers to grant such relief when the statutory requirements are not satisfied.

Analysis: Inherent powers cannot be used to bypass the specific requirements of attachment before judgment. Where the statutory scheme does not permit the relief, Section 151 cannot be invoked to create it indirectly. The absence of the mandatory ingredients under the relevant rules foreclosed resort to inherent powers for the same purpose.

Conclusion: The question is answered against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.

Final Conclusion: The interim protection granted by the court below was unsustainable, the plaintiff's injunction application was liable to be dismissed, and the defendant obtained the effective relief in the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: In a money suit, temporary injunction or attachment-like restraint over a defendant's property can be granted only when the specific statutory conditions for such relief are strictly established; inherent powers cannot be used to substitute or dilute those requirements.

---