Micky Metals Ltd vs Putul Ghosh And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 1422 Cal/2

OC-3
                           IA NO. GA/1/2021
                            IN CS/126/2021
                   IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                        COMMERCIAL DIVISION


                            MICKY METALS LTD.
                                 VERSUS
                          PUTUL GHOSH AND ANR.


  BEFORE:
  The Hon'ble JUSTICE SHEKHAR B. SARAF
  Date : 11th November, 2021.
  [Via Video Conference]

                                                                      Appearance:
                                                          Mr. Debraj Sahu, Adv.
                                                        Ms. Debjani Ghosh, Adv.
                                                    Mr. Bhaskar Mukherjee, Adv.
                                                            . . .for the petitioner.

                                                              Mr. Anuj Singh, Adv.
                                                      Ms. Shubhangi Singh, Adv.
                                                       Mr. Ashok Kr. Singh, Adv.
                                                       . . .for the defendant no.2.


        The Court: This is an application for attachment for judgment and for

 injunction against the properties of the respondent nos.1 and 2. It is to be

noted that service upon the respondent no.1 has returned as "refused".

Counsel on behalf of the respondent no.2 is present and has submitted that

the respondent no.2 has no liability against the petitioner and the cheque that

has been referred in paragraph 13 of the petition was issued as an advance

cheque in the year 2007. He submits that this particular cheque has not been

issued on behalf of the respondent no.1 nor for discharge of the liability of the

respondent no.1.

He further prays that he should be allowed to file affidavits to bring the

facts on record. Upon hearing counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties,

I am of the view that an ad interim ex parte order may be passed against the

respondent no.1 who has not appeared in Court in spite of service.

Accordingly, prayer (c) injuncting the respondent no.1 from dealing with

and/or disposing of and/or alienating and/or transferring and/or

encumbering their assets and properties and from withdrawing any amount

from their Bank Accounts and particularly those mentioned in paragraph 20

hereinabove without keeping apart a sum of Rs.67,67,730/- is allowed.

The respondents shall be at liberty to file their affidavit in opposition

within four weeks from date. Reply thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks

thereafter. The matter is made returnable six weeks hence i.e. on 23rd

December, 2021 under the heading "Adjourned Motion".

Plaintiff is directed to serve a copy of this order upon the respondent

no.1 and comply with the provision of Order 39 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908.

(SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.)

Sp/