Provisional attachment relief through fixed deposit receipt accepted, while a bank guarantee was refused as substitute security.

The Court declined to permit substitution of a provisional attachment with a bank guarantee. It held that the comparable relief in the cited precedent had not been granted in that form, but security by a fixed deposit receipt of a nationalised bank with a lien in favour of the investigating agencies had been accepted. As the respondents raised no objection to that mode of security, the Court directed that furnishing the fixed deposit receipt with lien within the stipulated time would result in lifting the provisional attachment.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner could be permitted to furnish a bank guarantee in lieu of the amount covered by the provisional attachment and obtain release of the attached properties.

Analysis: The relief sought was for substitution of the attachment by a bank guarantee. The Court declined to accept a bank guarantee and noted that in the relied-upon precedent, the comparable relief had not been granted in that form, but security by a fixed deposit receipt of a nationalised bank with lien in favour of the investigating agencies had been accepted as a condition for lifting attachment. The respondents expressed no objection to security being furnished by a fixed deposit receipt with lien. The Court therefore directed that upon furnishing a fixed deposit receipt for the specified amount with lien in favour of the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate within the stipulated time, the provisional attachment would be lifted.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not granted permission to furnish a bank guarantee, but was granted relief by way of furnishing a fixed deposit receipt with lien, on compliance with which the attachment stood lifted.

---