<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2012 (10) TMI 1164 - Bombay High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196947</link>
    <description>Attachment before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC is a drastic remedy available only on a prima facie showing that the defendant is about to dispose of or remove assets to obstruct or delay execution. In a dispute arising from default on foreign currency convertible bond repayment/redemption, the court noted prima facie non-payment but accepted the defendants&#039; undertakings to maintain status quo over identified assets, investments and escrow monies. As the defendants had not disposed of assets after suit and the undertakings sufficiently protected the claim, coercive ad-interim security or attachment was declined and interim restraint orders were maintained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Dec 2017 18:10:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=500463" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (10) TMI 1164 - Bombay High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196947</link>
      <description>Attachment before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC is a drastic remedy available only on a prima facie showing that the defendant is about to dispose of or remove assets to obstruct or delay execution. In a dispute arising from default on foreign currency convertible bond repayment/redemption, the court noted prima facie non-payment but accepted the defendants&#039; undertakings to maintain status quo over identified assets, investments and escrow monies. As the defendants had not disposed of assets after suit and the undertakings sufficiently protected the claim, coercive ad-interim security or attachment was declined and interim restraint orders were maintained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196947</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>