https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196774 Pendency of B.I.F.R. proceedings did not operate as a complete bar to interim security and attachment before judgment where the claim also covered amounts due from other entities controlled by the defendants. A guarantee objected to as insufficiently stamped could still be considered at the interim stage, with any stamping defect to be dealt with later by impounding and recovery of duty if necessary. The Court also recognised power under Order 38 Rule 5(2) to require disclosure of assets where security is not furnished, enabling effective attachment before judgment when the exact property is not known. en-us Wed, 21 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 Dec 2017 12:38:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196774 Pendency of B.I.F.R. proceedings did not operate as a complete bar to interim security and attachment before judgment where the claim also covered amounts due from other entities controlled by the defendants. A guarantee objected to as insufficiently stamped could still be considered at the interim stage, with any stamping defect to be dealt with later by impounding and recovery of duty if necessary. The Court also recognised power under Order 38 Rule 5(2) to require disclosure of assets where security is not furnished, enabling effective attachment before judgment when the exact property is not known. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 21 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196774