- (1.) All the aforesaid three applications are heard together as the same are arising out of the same suit as mentioned above. Fact and law in issue of all these applications are inter-connected and identical. Therefore, there cannot be any difficulty to decide the same with one and common Judgment.
(2.) The application being G.A. No. 2769 of 2004 has been taken out by the plaintiff above named for attachment before Judgement of the property as described in schedule 'B' which mentions premises No. 4/2, Middleton Street, Kolkata - 700 071 including office building, land, furniture, fixture etc.; and order of injunction from alienating and/or encumbering 'B' scheduled property mentioned in the suit in any manner whatsoever and, also for such further order or orders. The application being G.A. No. 3723 of 2004 has been made by apparently third party viz. M/s. Wellment Footwear Corporation Pvt. Ltd. for intervening in the suit for examining itself pro interesse suo and to contest the proceedings and for the relief for opening the padlock put by the Receiver on the apartment No. 101 on the first floor of the said premises. The third application being G.A. No. 3787 of 2004 has been taken out by the defendant for interim relief for direction upon the Receiver to open the lock put by him on the apartment No. 101 on the first floor of the premises No. 4/2, Middleton Street, Kolkata.
(3.) The interlocutory application taken out by the plaintiff for the aforesaid relief is based on money claim for a principal sum of Rs.8,00.000/- together with interest and other claims for which it reaches to a sum of Rs. 8 lakhs and odd. The allegations made in the petition of the application for attachment before Judgment is that the defendant by disposing of the entire property wants to move outside the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Court and most of the properties have been sold out. The sale proceeds were taken out of India for U.S.A. for setting up new factories etc. with the help of political high- ups of the State. Further allegations have been made that the defendant may sell the property as stated in the schedule 'B' of the application and prior to such sale the defendant has to be directed to furnish adequate security before the Hon'ble Court so that the plaintiffs decree which might be passed is not frustrated in any way. It is stated in the petition that Rs. 8 lakhs and odd will be given by the defendant as admitted in writing as such the defendant in fact has no defence and having realized the same he wants to dispose of the property to frustrate the claim of the plaintiff. On the aforesaid statement and averment the plaintiff obtained an ad interim order dated 29th July, 2004 whereby and whereunder Hon'ble Justice Subhro Kamal Mukherjee was pleased to restrain the defendant/respondent by an order of injunction from transferring and/or alienating the properties referred to in scheduled 'B' to the application with liberty to the petitioner to pray for extension of the said interim order and also for further orders upon notice to the defendant. This order was effective for a period till 31st August, 2004. After serving of the notice the matter was moved again on a returnable date, Justice Mukherjee was pleased to pass order on 12th August, 2004 appointing Receiver in respect of the property of the defendant located at premises No. 4/2, Middleton Street, Kolkata - 700 071 including office building, furniture and fixtures etc. The Receiver was also directed to take symbolic possession of the said property and to prepare an inventory thereof. Pursuant to the aforesaid interim order the Receiver went to carry out the same. It was stated before the Court that the Receiver however could not carry out the order because of the closure of the doors of the said office prermises. As such, Justice Mukherjee on prayer being made was pleased to authorize the Receiver to break open the padlock and to take actual physical possession of the property in question. It appears from the record that inspite of notice being served on those days viz. 12th August, 2004 and 30th August, 2004 neither the defendant nor the aforesaid persons appeared before His Lordship.;