Umesh Chandra Banerjee, J. - (1.) 'Mareva' Injunction is an established feature of English Law and the English Court has been categorical enough to record that there should not be any hesitation in the matter of such a grant where it appears likely that the plaintiff would recover judgment against the defendant for a certain or approximate sum and there is reason to believe that the defendant has the assets within the jurisdiction to meet the judgment but may deal with the same, so that they would not be available or traceable when the judgement is given against him. One of the basic criteria for the grant of Mareva Injunction is that the assets must be located within the jurisdiction to confer jurisdiction on the Court to grant a Mareva Injunction. Be it noted that this concept of grant of Mareva Injunction is not different from the power of the High Court to grant interlocutory or final order of an injunction and under tis general power of jurisdiction to grant an ex parte injunction the English Court has developed a principle that the Court has power to restrain the defendant from removing assets from the jurisdiction pending the trial of action whenever it was just and convenient to do so. This power was originally exercised when the defendant was out of the jurisdiction but has subsequently been extended so as to be available against a defendant even though he is based within the jurisdiction. This extension of power has its due statutory recognition in the Supreme Court Act, 1981 and in particular, reference may be made to section 37.
(2.) Having discussed the broad principles and the basic features of Mareva Injunction let us now at this juncture advert to the contextual facts briefly. The respondent, Murlidhar Ratanlal Exports Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Murlidhar') is an exporter of jute goods. The records depkt that Murlidhar entered into a contract with one Golden Fibre for purchase of different grades of raw jute of various quantities as specified in the sale contract dated 23rd April, 1996. In terms of the agreement, the said Murlidhar caused a letter of credit to be opened by one Golden Fibre Trade Centre Ltd. incorporated under the appropriate laws of Bangladesh in favour of its corresponding bank in Bangladesh viz., ANZ Grindlays Bank, Dhaka. Relevant contextual facts further reveal that there was amendment to the letter of credit by reason of a subsequent assignment. On arrival, however, of the goods it has been alleged by the plaintiff that there was difference in quality and as such the price of the goods was far less than what was agreed to be sold to the plaintiff-respondent herein. It has been stated that the value of the goods actually sold and delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff - respondent is US dollar 1,81,344 equivalent to Indian currency of Rs. 65,28,456/-. A definite assertion has been made that the plaintiff-respondent was supplied with a very inferior quality of goods and the factum of which has only been made known to the defendant and it is on this perspective the respondent No. 1 filed a suit claiming a decree for Rs. 11,36,000/- against the defendants jointly and/or severally together with a claim for interim interest and interest on judgment.
(3.) During the course of hearing Mr. Pratap Chatterjee, appearing for the respondent, contended that the shipment has been completed on 23rd May, 1996 and the letter of credit is negotiable arter 90 days from the shipment which has expired on 22nd August, 1996. In the affidavit before the learned Single Judge it has been specifically averred : "The plaintiff is therefore reasonably apprehended that payment would be made by the bank immediately until and unless appropriate order is passed.";