1929 (11) TMI 8 - Other - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the attachment before judgment.
2. Validity and effect of the security bond.
3. Allegation of negligence against solicitors.
4. Entitlement to restitution of the amount paid.
5. Proper forum for resolving issues related to the execution and satisfaction of the decree.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Attachment Before Judgment:
The initial suit involved an attachment before judgment of a fixed deposit of Rs. 50,500 in the National Bank of India, which was claimed to belong to Marret but was attached on the presumption it might belong to the French company. The attachment was intended to secure the plaintiff's claim pending the outcome of the litigation. The court eventually ordered that the fixed deposit be replaced by a security bond from the South Indian Export Company.

2. Validity and Effect of the Security Bond:
The security bond was executed to replace the attachment on the fixed deposit. The bond stated that the South Indian Export Company would pay Rs. 50,500 into court if the plaintiffs obtained a decree against either of the defendants. The bond was carefully drafted to preserve the position that the money was to be paid into court, maintaining the status quo of the attachment. The bond included a recital that the deposit belonged to Marret, which was beneficial to him, as it had been a point of dispute.

3. Allegation of Negligence Against Solicitors:
Marret alleged that his solicitors, King & Partridge, negligently drafted the bond, causing his interests to suffer. However, the court found that the bond was properly drafted and effectively preserved Marret's position. The bond did not entitle the plaintiffs to the money simply upon obtaining a decree against the French company or Marret. The court concluded that the solicitors were not negligent, as they had protected Marret's interests successfully.

4. Entitlement to Restitution of the Amount Paid:
After the plaintiffs obtained a decree against the French company, they sought payment of the Rs. 50,500 from the security bond. The court ordered the South Indian Export Company to pay the amount into court, which was then paid out to the plaintiffs. Marret later sought restitution of this amount, arguing that it was his money and the plaintiffs were not entitled to it. However, the court held that the order for payment out, which was not appealed, must be treated as effective. Therefore, Marret's claim for restitution failed.

5. Proper Forum for Resolving Issues Related to the Execution and Satisfaction of the Decree:
The court emphasized that, under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, all questions relating to the execution and satisfaction of the decree should be decided by the court executing the decree. Since the order for payment out was made in satisfaction of the decree, it precluded any separate cause of action by Marret in the present suit. The court concluded that Marret's current suit was not the appropriate procedure to address his grievances.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed Marret's suit, finding no grounds for the relief he sought. The bond was correctly drafted, and there was no negligence by the solicitors. The order for payment out of the Rs. 50,500 was effective and unappealed, precluding Marret's claim for restitution. The issues related to the execution and satisfaction of the decree should have been resolved within the original suit. The court advised that the appeal be dismissed with costs, acknowledging the unfortunate outcome for Marret but stating that the present procedure was not the correct remedy.