https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297940 An injunction, attachment before judgment, or receivership under Order XXXIX Rule 1(b) CPC requires the applicant to show a real creditor relationship with the person whose property is targeted and a strong basis for apprehending frustration of recovery. On the facts, the plaintiff failed to establish any substantive claim against the second defendant or any enforceable link to that property, which was already subject to prior security interests. The asserted connection was found too tenuous, and the claimed refund arrangement displaced the original investment narrative. The ex parte relief was therefore disproportionate, and the appointment of a receiver or special officer was unwarranted; the order vacating that relief was affirmed. en-us Thu, 16 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 Oct 2021 08:32:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297940 An injunction, attachment before judgment, or receivership under Order XXXIX Rule 1(b) CPC requires the applicant to show a real creditor relationship with the person whose property is targeted and a strong basis for apprehending frustration of recovery. On the facts, the plaintiff failed to establish any substantive claim against the second defendant or any enforceable link to that property, which was already subject to prior security interests. The asserted connection was found too tenuous, and the claimed refund arrangement displaced the original investment narrative. The ex parte relief was therefore disproportionate, and the appointment of a receiver or special officer was unwarranted; the order vacating that relief was affirmed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 16 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297940