https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126915 A consent order may be interpreted and enforced, but interim restraint or attachment over property cannot be granted on the basis of an unascertained or disputed monetary claim. The claimed liability and inter se obligations remained unresolved, and the applicants had not established a definite decretal debt or proven entitlement. Because the alleged liability still required determination and quantification, and the applicants were not shown to be creditors facing fraudulent dissipation of assets, extraordinary interim protection was refused. The distinction between attachment and injunction was material, and neither remedy could be used to secure a unilateral calculation of a claim before entitlement was definitively established. en-us Tue, 13 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Feb 2013 18:33:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126915 A consent order may be interpreted and enforced, but interim restraint or attachment over property cannot be granted on the basis of an unascertained or disputed monetary claim. The claimed liability and inter se obligations remained unresolved, and the applicants had not established a definite decretal debt or proven entitlement. Because the alleged liability still required determination and quantification, and the applicants were not shown to be creditors facing fraudulent dissipation of assets, extraordinary interim protection was refused. The distinction between attachment and injunction was material, and neither remedy could be used to secure a unilateral calculation of a claim before entitlement was definitively established. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 13 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=126915