Legal Reference Library

The Delhi High Court, in the case of VK Bhatnagar vs Canara Bank and Anr, has directed the bank to compensate the petitioner for the trauma and humiliation caused due to wrongful attachment of his property because of the bank’s negligence arising due to mistaken identity. The petition was filed by VK Bhatnagar, whose property was wrongly attached by Canara Bank for default of payment by a debtor of the same name. The petitioner faced extreme humiliation since not only was the warrant of attachment affixed to his property, but loudspeakers too proclaimed the same. The petitioner then filed objections before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, stating that he had undertaken no financial transactions with Canara Bank and also disclosing his parentage. He also showed that he was a resident of Delhi where as the debtor is a resident of Lucknow. However, no reply was offered by Canara Bank in response to the objections filed. Harassed, the petitioner filed a writ petition against the ban...

An order of attachment before judgment passed under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code will not survive the dismissal of a suit and it ends when the suit is dismissed after trial. Contents 1 (i) Whether an order of attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“the Code”, for short) made in a suit for recovery of money will survive the dismissal of the suit on merits? 2 (ii) If the appellate court reverses the decree of the trial court and allows the suit claim, will it result in an automatic revival of the order of attachment before judgment? 3 (iii) Whether the ratio in the decision by Full Bench in Thampi Muhammad Abdul Kadir v. Padmanabha Pillai Parameswaran Pillai (1952 KLT 264) holds good in view of the change in the precedential law and insertion of Order XXXVIII Rule 11A to the Code? 3.1 “11A. Provisions applicable to attachment.- 3.2 “57. Determination of attachment.- 3.3 Arumuhom Ammal v. Nayanar Panicker (1962 KLT 264) 3.4...

The Supreme Court of India in U. SUBHADRAMMA VS. STATE OF A.P has observed that property of a person who was accused of an offence of misappropriation but who died during the pendency of the criminal trial cannot be attached in the hands of his legal representatives under the provisions of Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944. Apex Court bench comprising of Justices S.A. Bobde and Amitava Roy, terming the order of District Judge ‘incomprehensible’ and ‘disturbing’, reiterated that criminal court cannot continue proceedings against a dead person and find him guiltyand such proceedings are contrary to the very foundation of criminal jurisprudence. The Court also observed that the finding of trial court that a person who died during the pendency of trial is alone responsible for the offences is completely vitiated as null and void because a criminal court cannot continue proceedings against a dead person and find him guilty. BACKGROUND Ramachandraiah, was accused of the of...