Case title: QUEST OFFICES PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS. VS. PLATINUM RENT A CAR INDIA PVT LTD
Case no: WRIT PETITION NO. 13526 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
Order on: 21 May , 2024
Quorum: THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
Fact of the case:
The case involves a Writ Petition filed by Quest Offices Private Limited and its directors (Petitioners) against Platinum Rent A Car India Pvt Ltd (Respondent). The dispute arose from an ex-parte ad-interim order of attachment sought by Platinum Rent A Car India Pvt Ltd on certain properties owned by Quest Offices Private Limited and its directors. The attachment order was pursued under Order XXXVIII of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The Petitioners upheld that the Commercial Court misinterpreted the application, treating it under Order XXXVIII instead of Order XXXIX of the CPC. The Petitioners challenged this order, arguing that it was passed without hearing them and without sufficient grounds presented by the Respondent to justify such an order.
Issues framed by court:
- Whether the order of attachment passed ex-parte was justified under Order XXXVIII of CPC.
- Whether the Commercial Court’s treatment of the application under Order XXXVIII instead of Order XXXIX was appropriate.
Legal provisions:
Articles 226 of the Constitution of India: Deals with the power on High Courts to issue writs, orders, or directions for the enforcement of fundamental rights or for any other purpose.
Articles 227 of the Constitution of India: Deals with the power of superintendence of High Courts over all subordinate courts and tribunals within their respective jurisdictions.
Order XXXVIII of the Civil Procedure Code : Deals with “Attachment before Judgment.” This order outlines the procedure for obtaining an attachment order from the court before the final judgment is rendered in a civil suit.
Order XXXIX of the Civil Procedure Code: Deals with “Temporary Injunctions and Interlocutory Orders.”
Contentions of Appellant:
The appellant argued that the order of attachment was passed ex-parte without giving them an opportunity to be heard. They contended that this violated their right to natural justice, as they were not given a chance to present their side before the attachment order was issued. The appellant contended that the Commercial Court incorrectly treated the application under Order XXXVIII of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) instead of Order XXXIX. They argued that the application was misinterpreted, leading to an incorrect application of the law and jurisdictional error.
Contentions of Respondents:
The respondent asserted that the order of attachment was justified under Order XXXVIII of the CPC. They argued that this provision allows for the passing of a conditional order, and the circumstances of the case warranted such action to protect their interests. The respondent upheld that there was no error in the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commercial Court. They argued that the Commercial Court appropriately applied the relevant provisions of the CPC in issuing the attachment order and that the order was within the Court’s jurisdiction.
Court analysis& Judgement:
The Court acknowledged the appellant’s contention that the attachment order was passed without affording them the opportunity to be heard, thus violating their right to natural justice. It also recognized the appellant’s argument regarding the misinterpretation of the application by the Commercial Court. The impugned order lacked reasons justifying the attachment, and the Court found that the Commercial Court did not adequately consider the necessity of such an order.
Therefore, the court directed the parties to cooperate for an expeditious resolution of the matter before the Commercial Court. It instructed the Commercial Court to hear both parties and make a decision in accordance with the law. Pending the resolution of the case, the impugned order of attachment was adjourned. Until the matter is resolved by the Commercial Court, the impugned order of attachment is kept in abeyance.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed By- Antara Ghosh
