If Attachment Is In Force, Garnishee Can’t Let Money Be Withdrawn: Bombay High Court Slams Employer For Ignoring Decree

“Prohibition in attachment warrant continues until court says otherwise — money credited later is also attachable” - Bombay High Court set aside an order of the City Civil Court that had wrongly limited the garnishee's liability in execution proceedings to the funds available on the day of receipt of the warrant of attachment. Justice Jitendra Jain held that once a warrant of attachment is issued under Order 21 Rule 46 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, it continues to operate during its entire validity, and the garnishee must not allow the judgment-debtor to withdraw any money that comes in after the attachment.

The Court declared that the garnishee’s act of allowing withdrawals during the attachment period was a direct violation of the law, and the trial court’s interpretation was contrary to the spirit and object of execution proceedings under the CPC.

“Attachment Means What It Says — Garnishee Must Stop All Payments Until Court Allows Otherwise”

The case arose when M/s. Otarmal Kantilal & Co. obtained an ex parte money decree on 7th July 2009 for Rs.52,205/- plus 14% interest against Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Since Respondent No.1 was employed with Respondent No.3, a garnishee notice and a warrant of attachment were issued on 22nd July 2009 to his employer (Respondent No.3), prohibiting it from paying any money to him and directing that payments be made to the decree-holder instead. However, the employer, despite receiving this attachment order, allowed the employee (judgment-debtor) to withdraw significant funds credited to his account after the warrant was issued.

The City Civil Court accepted the employer’s defence that it was only liable to attach Rs.362/- which was the balance in the employee’s account on the day it received the warrant. It rejected the garnishee notice and disposed of the execution application. This prompted the decree-holder to file a first appeal before the Bombay High Court.

“Warrant Was In Force For A Year – Garnishee Can’t Act As If It Lasted A Day”

Justice Jitendra Jain pointed out that the warrant of attachment issued on 22nd July 2009 clearly stated that it had to be returned by 22nd July 2010 with details of execution. This, in the Court’s view, meant that the order was valid for one year and during that time, any money credited into the judgment-debtor’s account was subject to the attachment.

The Court observed, “The warrant of attachment specifically prohibits Respondent No.3 from making any payment until further orders of the Court. Nothing has been shown to me that the warrant was challenged or modified. In the absence of any order from the Court, the prohibition would continue.”

It was further noted that on 25th June 2010 — nearly a year after the warrant — Rs.47,053/- was credited to the employee’s account, but the employer permitted the withdrawal of this amount. The High Court found this conduct completely illegal and said, “Permitting such withdrawal during the period when the attachment warrant is in force is contrary to the said warrant.”

Employer’s Flip-Flop Weakens Its Defence – Deposited Money Despite Denying Liability

The High Court also took serious note of the garnishee’s inconsistent conduct. Despite claiming that it only needed to pay the Rs.362/- lying in the account on the date of the warrant, the employer had voluntarily deposited Rs.22,000/-, and even filed an affidavit offering to pay another Rs.15,709/-.

The Court questioned this contradiction and said, “If the stand of Respondent No.3 is that only the amount on the date of receipt of the warrant is to be paid, then I fail to understand why they deposited Rs.22,000/- and offered another Rs.15,709/- which were not part of that amount.” This, the Court said, showed that the employer was aware of its continuing liability, but later changed its stand to avoid full compliance.

In view of these findings, the High Court held that the trial court had wrongly rejected the garnishee notice and had failed to appreciate that attachment continues during its stated period unless modified by the court.

Justice Jitendra Jain allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the City Civil Court. The matter was remanded back to the trial court with a clear direction to give effect to the attachment as per law, recognising the garnishee’s obligation to attach not only the amount lying on the date of the warrant but also any amount that came into the account during the attachment period. The High Court reaffirmed that execution orders are not symbolic but binding, and cannot be evaded by narrow technical readings or selective compliance.

The Court concluded, “In the absence of any challenge to the warrant of attachment, and based on the conduct of Respondent No.3, the findings of the trial court are erroneous and deserve to be quashed.”

Date of Decision: 4 November 2025