The court, noting non-furnishing of security for an attachment claim, passed an order of attachment against the respondent in an arbitration matter, closed the application, and directed transmission of the order via local District Court.
Order of attachment against the respondent was passed and the application was closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
Application No.617 of 2017
Dr.ANITA SUMANTH J.
This Court, upon hearing the learned counsel for the applicant, vide order dated 26.04.2017, directed the respondent to furnish security to the extent of the claim made being an amount of Rs.11,10,980.67 in the application on or before 05.06.2017, failing which, an order of attachment order would be passed.
2.When the matter is taken up for hearing today, learned counsel for the applicant would submit that no security has been furnished as directed by this Court. He would further submit that an award of arbitration between the applicant and the respondent has been passed as early as on 14.11.2014 and the same has attained finality.
3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant, the respondent being unpresented despite service of notice and printing of name in the cause list. In the above circumstances, there shall be an order of attachment as prayed for. The order of attachment shall be transmitted through the District Court, Pudukkottai and the
2
Dr.ANITA SUMANTH, J.
vga
attachment order may be hand delivered to the applicant for transmission.
4.In view of the above direction, nothing further survives for adjudication and this application stands closed.
06.06.2017
vga
Application No.617 of 2017 http://www.judis.nic.in
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an attachment order should be passed when security for the arbitration claim amount is not furnished.
Whether the application for attachment should be disposed of in light of the respondent's absence.
Anita Sumanth
Respondent
Anita Sumanth J.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
