On finding that security was not furnished despite notice by publication, the High Court passed an order of attachment in connection with an auction application.
order of attachment against respondents
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.3291 of 2018
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
This Court, upon hearing the learned counsel for the applicant, vide order dated 10.07.2019, directed the respondents to furnish security to the extent of the claim made in the application being an amount of Rs.4,73,994/- on or before 07.08.2019, failing which, an order of attachment order would be passed.
applicant would submit that no security has been furnished as directed by this Court. He would further submit that an award in arbitration between the applicant and the respondents has been passed on 14.12.2011.
prayed for. The order of attachment shall be transmitted through the City Civil https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Court, Chennai, and the attachment order may be hand delivered to the applicant for
2
transmission.
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA.J
drl
5. In view of the above direction, nothing further survives for adjudication
and this application stands closed. The parties are free to take such action, as they may desire hereinafter, in accordance with law.
07.08.2019
drl
Application No.3291 of 2018
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
RESPONDENTS
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
