Single judge upheld court's order directing attachment of applicant's property due to non-furnishing of security. Service of notice deemed sufficient despite respondent's absence. Application treated as closed.
Attachment order to be transmitted through Sub Court, Barshi, Solapur, Maharashtra, to be handed over to applicant.
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.1168 of 2018
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
This Court, upon hearing the learned counsel for the applicant,
vide order dated 07.06.2019, directed the respondent to furnish security to the extent of the claim made in the application being an amount of Rs.7,14,613.56, on or before 05.07.2019, failing which, an order of attachment order would be passed.
security ordered by this Court has been delivered and affidavit of
service is also filed to that effect. Though the name of the respondent is printed in the cause list, there is no representation for him either in
2
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
vv/rsi
person or through counsel. Hence, service to the respondent is held sufficient. In the above circumstances, there shall be an order of attachment as prayed for. The order of attachment shall be transmitted through the Sub Court, Barshi, Solapur, Maharashtra and the attachment order may be hand delivered to the applicant for transmission.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether attachment order should be passed in respect of the applicant's property on failure to furnish security.
Whether service of notice on the respondent is sufficient.
Whether the application for attachment order stands closed after issuance of attachment order.
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
RESPONDENT
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
