Founded by Managing Partner K.P. Sreejith, INDIALAW began as a small firm in Mumbai with a commitment to client service and corporate-focused legal solutions. From its modest beginnings, the firm has grown into a respected name by prioritizing excellence, integrity, and tailored legal strategies. INDIALAW’s team believes in adapting to each client’s unique needs, ensuring that solutions align with individual circumstances and business goals.
The firm combines its deep understanding of the local business landscape with experience across multiple jurisdictions, enabling clients to navigate complex legal environments effectively. INDIALAW emphasizes proactive service, anticipating client needs and potential challenges to provide timely, high-quality legal support. The firm values lasting client relationships and sees its role as a trusted advisor, dedicated to delivering business-friendly and principled legal counsel.
In L.K. Prabhu (Through LRs) v. K.T. Mathew & Ors., the Supreme Court of India clarifies the true scope of attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC, holding that such attachment can apply only to property owned by the defendant at the time of filing the suit. The Court emphasises that this remedy is purely protective and cannot be used to unsettle prior, completed transfers.
within Law Department Performance, Immigration and Compliance topic(s)
In L.K. Prabhu (Through LRs) v. K.T. Mathew & Ors., the Supreme Court of India clarifies the true scope of attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC, holding that such attachment can apply only to property owned by the defendant at the time of filing the suit. The Court emphasises that this remedy is purely protective and cannot be used to unsettle prior, completed transfers.
The judgment further draws a clear line between procedural remedies and substantive rights, ruling that allegations of fraudulent transfer must be pursued through a separate suit under Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, not through attachment proceedings. Reinforcing protections for bona fide purchasers, the Court ensures that suspicion alone cannot defeat valid, registered transactions.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
