CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA Vs. PREMIER PAPER PRODUCTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ASHOK C.Parkash, 1. The petitioner (applicant Bank) has filed LA. No. 930/1995 in O.S. No. 454/1995 before learned Sub-Judge, Coimbatore, praying therein that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to order attachment before judgment by Pro-order restraining the "Garnishee" from paying and the respondents from receiving any amount due to the respondents and available with the Garnishee with suitable directions to the Garnishee to deposit the said amount available with it in the Court in the above matter and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.

(2.) The petitioner has solemnly affirmed that the petitioner has already written letter to R-5 i.e. "FEDERAL BANK". But there is no response, the amount available to the credit of respondent Bank should be attached and the "Garnishee" should be directed to deposit the money available with it in Court so that we can take steps to adjust the said amount towards suit claim. The petitioner has further submitted, that the amount due to the R-1 to R-4 are available with the 6th respondent (i. e. "GARNISHEE M/S. DENMUR FAX ROLL LTD.") and hurried attempts arc being made by R-1 to R-4 to collect the amount due to them from the said Garnishee. They are closely associated with each other, so it is easy for them to withdraw the amount Similarly amounts are available with 7th respondent, i.e. BROOKE BOND (INDIA) LTD., Coimbatore, R-1 to R-4 are trying to collect the said amount also without the knowledge of the petitioner. The Balance of convenience is in favour of granting an order of attachment, before Judgment by issuing prohibitory order. Otherwise the petitioner will be greatly prejudiced.

(3.) R-2 in his counter-affidavit (dated 24th September, 2002) has solemnly affirmed that he is filing Counter on his behalf and on behalf of respondents 1, 3 and 4. That the instant Application which has been filed as early as in the year 1995 has been largely infructuous and is unsustainable in law and on facts. The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have also controverted, that R-1 is operating an account through Federal Bank, Coimbatore. However, they have admitted that there was a proposal in the year 1994-95 to shift the entire operation of the 1st respondent from petitioner Bank to Federal Bank, in the context of a settlement proposal. In support of this contention, and in order to show transparency and to prove that the proposed action was taken by them, with the consent and knowledge of the petitioner Banks, the respondent have Annexed Xerox copies of the exchange of letters between the petitioner and respondents with their affidavit. Since, the proposal for settlement was frustrated/ fructified, so there is no question continuing relationship with the Federal Bank. They have further submitted that since there is no amount available in the Account of Federal Bank to the credit of these respondents, so the prayer of Garnishment does not arise. Regarding allegation against R-6, it has been submitted by the respondents that respondent 6 already stood wounded up by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in C.P. No. 8 of 2001. They have substantiated their said averments, by way of annexing Xerox copies of the Record, whatever available with them. Regarding R-6, they have prayed that there is no payment due against the said respondents, therefore interim application against the said respondent (R-6) does not lie.