Webster’s New World Dictionary defines an ‘interlocutory order’ as an order other than a final decision. Interlocutory orders are passed for the protection of the rights of the parties while the proceedings in a case are underway. 

These orders come in a variety of shapes and sizes, but they are usually prohibitory in nature and are intended to preserve the subject of the dispute or to prevent damage or loss to the party seeking them. Injunctions are typically sought to prevent parties from entering into third-party contracts, breaching contracts, creating third-party rights, trespassing, and other activities that would render the entire suit or action in which final relief or orders are to be issued infructuous.

Interlocutory proceedings stand independent and aloof of the main dispute between the parties involved in the suit. They are steps taken for facilitating the just and fair disposal of the main dispute. The Supreme Court has observed in Amar Nath v. State of Haryana[1], that the term “interlocutory order” denotes an order purely interim or temporary in nature which does not decide or touch upon the important rights or liabilities of the parties and any order which substantially affects the right of the parties cannot be said to be an interlocutory order.

Forms of interlocutory orders: Temporary injunctions, Arrest before judgement, Attachment before judgement, Appointment of commissioners and receivers, Payments in Court, Security for Costs.


An injunction is a judicial process whereby the party is required to do or to refrain from doing any particular act. In the former case it is called a mandatory injunction and in the latter case it is called a restrictive injunction. Its main purpose is to preserve the subject matter of the suit in status quo for the time being.

An injunction may be a temporary/interim/interlocutory injunction or a permanent/perpetual injunction.

A permanent or perpetual injunction restrains a party permanently from doing the specified act. Such an injunction is granted at the conclusion of the trial based on merits. It is governed by Sec. 38-42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

Temporary or interim injunction restrains a party temporarily from doing the specified act and can be granted only until the disposal of the suit or until further orders of the court. It is regulated by the provisions of Order 39 of the Code and may be granted at any stage of the suit.

R 1: The rule lays down lays down three circumstances where the Court

may grant temporary or interim injunction if the circumstances and facts are

proved by affidavit or otherwise.

  1. where the disputed property is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party to the suit or from being fully sold in the execution of a decree;
  2. where the defendant threatens or intends to remove or dispose of his property with an intention to defraud his creditor;
  3. thirdly where the defendant threatens to dispossess the plaintiff in relation to the disputed property.

On proof of these on affidavits, the Court may pass an order restraining or forbearing the defendant from doing such act of wasting, damaging, alienating, sale, removal or

dispossession of the property or restrain the defendant from dispossession the

plaintiff from the suit property or causing injury to the plaintiff in relation to the disputed property.[2]

While passing an interim order of injunction under O XXXIX, rule 1 of the Code, the Court is required to consider three basic principles, namely:[3]

  • Prima facie case,
  • balance of inconvenience, and
  • irreparable loss or injury.

These rules are the “triple test” for granting of interim injunction.[4]

Prima facie case: The applicant is required to make out a prima facie case supporting the right claimed by him. Prima facie case is that which raises substantial bona fide questions, which need investigation and ultimately a decision on merits.[5] When determining whether a prima facie case has been established or not, the relevant question is whether the conclusion in question could be reached based on the evidence presented. It is not relevant to see whether that was the only conclusion that could be arrived at based on the evidence.[6] 

Balance of inconvenience: The court must keep in mind the balance of (in)convenience i.e., whether the applicant will suffer more inconvenience if the injunction is not granted than the opposite party will suffer if the temporary injunction is granted.[7]

Irreparable loss or injury: It is not enough to establish the existence of a prima facie case; the applicant must also demonstrate that he will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction requested is not granted, and that he has no other remedy available to protect himself from the consequences of the alleged injury. However, the term “irreparable injury” does not imply that the injury cannot be repaired. It simply means that the injury must be substantial, meaning that it cannot be adequately compensated through damages. This principle has been explained adequately in the leading case of American Cyanamid Co. v. Ethicon Ltd.:[8]

The governing principle is that the court should first consider whether, if the plaintiff were to succeed at the trial in establishing his right to permanent injunction, he would be adequately compensated by an award of damages for the loss he would have sustained as a result of the defendant continuing to do what was sought to be enjoined between the time of the application and the time of the trial. If damages in the measure recoverable at the common law would be adequate remedy and the defendant would be in a financial position to pay them, no interlocutory injunction should normally be granted, however strong the plaintiff’s claim appeared to be at that stage.”

The expression “irreparable injury”, however, doesn’t mean that there should be no possibility of repairing the injury. It only means that the injury should be a material one, i.e., which cannot be adequately compensated by damages.

It is not necessary that all three conditions must obtain with the first court as sine qua non, at least two conditions should be satisfied.[9]

R. 2: R 2 applies to injunction relating to a breach of contract or other injury “of any kind”. This includes any legal injury or wrongful act other than arising from breach of contract, e.g., trespass on property, cases of tort, etc.

Breach of contract: It should be borne in mind that the ordinary remedy for a breach of contract is damages and no injunction can be granted where damages afford proper and adequate relief. However, if an application for a temporary injunction is made for a breach of contract, it must be shown that irreparable injury or inconvenience would result if it is not granted.[10] 

No injunction can be granted if on the face of the allegations it appears that it is not a case for specific performance or temporary injunction or that an injunction would be infructuous.[11]

Injunction cannot be granted to prevent breach of contract if performance of such contract cannot be specifically enforced.[12]

Injury of any other kind: The word “injury” has not been defined in the court. Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed, p 924 defines “injury” as any wrong or damage done to another, either in his person, rights, reputation or property. In other words it means an act which harms, hurts or damages irrespective of the consideration how it may arise.

R. 2A: The rule, which provides the consequences for disobedience or breach of injunction, was added by the Amendment Act of 1976. The rule provides that in case of disobedience of an injunction granted under rr 1 or 2 or breach of any of the terms in which the injunction was granted or the order made, the Court granting the injunction or making the order, or any Court to which the suit or proceeding is transferred, may order the property of the person guilty of such disobedience or breach to be attached, and may also order such person to be detained in the civil prison for a term not exceeding three months unless in the meantime the Court directs his release.

An attachment under this rule doesn’t remain in force for more than one year, after which, if the disobedience or breach continues, the property attached may be sold and out of the proceeds, the Court may award such compensation as it thinks fit to the injured party and shall pay the balance, if any, to the party entitled thereto.

R. 3.: As a general rule, the court must give notice to the OP before granting an injunction. However, if the court considers it necessary in the facts and circumstances of a particular case, that the delay caused due to giving of notice to the OP would defeat the purpose of the injunction, it may pass an ex parte injunction order. The proviso requires the court to record the reasons for passing an ex parte order. The requirement to record the reasons cannot be said to be a mere formality and the failure to comply with the requirement is a grave error which might lead to the setting aside of the order.[13] In such a situation, the court shall order the applicant to send a copy of the application and other documents immediately to the other party.

But any such ex parte order should be in force up to a particular date before which the plaintiff should be required to serve the notice on the defendant concerned.[14]

SC laid down in Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das,[15] the factors which should weigh with the courts in granting an ex parte injunction:

  • whether irreparable or serious mischief will ensue to the plaintiff;
  • whether the refusal of ex parte injunction would involve greater injustice than the grant of it would involve;
  • the court will also consider the time at which the plaintiff first had notice of the act complained so that the making of improper order against a party in his absence is prevented;
  • the court will consider whether the plaintiff had acquiesced for some time and in such circumstances it will not grant ex parte injunction;
  • the court would expect a party applying for ex parte applying for ex parte injunction to show utmost good faith in making the application.
  • even if granted, the ex parte injunction would be for a limited period of time.
  • General principles like prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss would also be considered by the court.

R. 3A: The rule requires the court to dispose off the original application for injunction on merits within 30 days from the grant of the ex parte injunction and where it is not practicable to do so the court shall have to record its reasons for such inability.

Period of ex parte injunction: The rule requires the court to pass the final order on the original injunction application within 30 days from the passing of the ex parte injunction. It does not, however, state what were to happen if the application was not decided within the given period. In this context the SC observed in A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S. Chellappan[16] that O 39 R 3A does not say that the period of the injunction order should be restricted by the court to thirty days at the first instance, but the court should pass the final order on it within thirty days from the day on which the injunction was granted. Hence, the order does not ipso facto become illegal merely because it was not restricted to a period of thirty days or less. After the expiry of 30 days the injunction order does not become non est in the eyes of law, though it becomes inoperative with the efflux of time.[17]

R. 4: The rule provides for an injunction (1) passed ex parte and also (2) of an injunction already in force which is operating harshly or which needs reconsideration, to be discharged, varied or set aside by the court on an application made thereto by any party.

The two provisos added by the Amendment of 1976 lays down the grounds for discharge, vacation and setting aside of an injunction order. The first proviso provides for vacation of an ex parte injunction on the ground that a false or misleading statement has been made in the application or supporting affidavit. The rule is based on the principle that a person seeking an ex parte order must come before the court with clean hands, must not suppress any relevant facts from the court, and must refrain from making misleading statements and from giving incorrect information to the court.[18]

R. 5: An injunction directed to a corporation is binding not only on the corporation itself, but also on all members and officers of the corporation whose personal action it seeks to restrain.

R. 6: On the application of any party to a suit, the Court may order the sale of any movable property, being the subject-matter of such suit, or attached before judgement in such suit, which is subject to speedy and natural decay, or which for any other just and sufficient reason it may be desirable to have sold at once, by any person named in such order, and in such manner and on such terms as it thinks fit.

R. 7: Under this rule the court may:

(a) make an order for the detention, preservation, or inspection of any property that is the subject-matter of such suit, or as to which any question may arise therein;

(b) for all or any of the aforesaid purposes authorise any person to enter upon or into any land or building in the possession of any other party to such suit; and

(c) for all or any of the aforesaid purposes authorise any sample to be taken, any observation to be made, or any experiment to be tried.

R. 8: An application under rr 6 or 7, may be made by a plaintiff at any time after the institution of the suit, and by the defendant at any time after appearance.

It is the duty of the court to give notice to the OP before passing an order under rr 6 or 7, except where it appears that the object of making such order would be defeated by the delay, direct notice thereof to be given to the opposite party.

R. 9: When the land in question is used to pay revenue to the government or is a tenure that is subject to sale, and the party in possession of the land or tenure fails to pay the revenue to the government or rent to the proprietor of the tenure, any other person who claims an interest in the land and pays the rent or revenue overdue may be placed in immediate possession of the disputed land.

R. 10: When the subject-matter of a suit is money or another thing capable of delivery, and any party admits that he holds such money or other thing as a trustee for another party, or that it belongs or is due to another party, the Court may order it to be deposited in Court or delivered to such last-named party, with or without security, subject to the Court’s further direction.

Appeal: While granting or refusing to grant an injunction a trial court is expected to take into consideration all the circumstances of the case. Normally the discretion exercised by the trial Court will not be interfered with by a Court of appeal unless such erroneous exercise of jurisdiction resulted in grave mis-carriage of justice.[19]

Order 43 rule 1(r) provides for appeals against orders under rr 1, 2, 2A, 4 or 10 of Order 39. Judicial precedents have also allowed appeals against ex parte ad interim injunctions. Normally an appeal doesn’t lie during the pendency of application for grant or vacation of temporary injunction. However, if the court fails to fulfil the requirements of Order 39 R. 3A, the aggrieved party shall be entitled to right of appeal against the remaining in force of the ex parte order, notwithstanding the pendency of the application for grant or vacation of a temporary injunction. This is because the parties should not be punished for the inaction of the court or its inability to act according to the procedure established by law.[20]



The creditor may, under special circumstances, apply for the arrest of the debtor or for the attachment of his property even before the judgement. The object underlying this provision is to enable the plaintiff to prevent the defendant from attempting to defeat the execution of the decree passed against him. The court may issue an arrest warrant to arrest the defendant and bring him before the court to show cause why he should not furnish security for his appearance. Such an order may be passed on the following grounds:

  1.  that the defendant, with intent to delay the plaintiff, or to avoid any process of the Court or to obstruct or delay the execution of any decree that may be passed against him,—
  2.  has absconded or left the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court, or
  3.  is about to abscond or leave the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court, or
  4.  has disposed of or removed from the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court his property or any part thereof, or
  5.  that the defendant is about to leave India under circumstances affording reasonable probability that the plaintiff will or may thereby be obstructed or delayed in the execution of any decree that may be passed against the defendant in the suit.[21]

The defendant, however, shall not be arrested if he pays to the officer entrusted with the execution of the warrant any sum specified in the warrant as sufficient to satisfy the plaintiff’s claim.[22]

The provision confers extraordinary powers on the court and they must be exercised only after the court is satisfied about the following two conditions:[23]

  1. The plaintiff’s case must be bona fide and his cause of action must be prima facie unimpeachable subject to his proving the allegations in the plaint.
  2. There must be a reason to believe, based on adequate material, that there is a real danger that the defendant will remove himself or his property from the ambit of the court if the court doesn’t exercise its extraordinary power.

In case the defendant fails to show cause why he should not furnish security for his appearance, the court shall order him either to deposit in court money or other property sufficient to answer claim against him or to furnish security for his appearance at any time when called upon.[24] Where the defendants offer a surety for his appearance, the defendant shall, in default of such appearance, pay such sum of money which the defendant may be ordered to pay in the suit.[25]   


Rule 5 allows the court to attach property before judgement in certain cases. The primary object of such an attachment is to prevent an attempt on the part of the defendant to defeat the realisation of the decree that may be passed against him.[26]

Grounds: The court may pass an order for attachment if it is satisfied that:

  1. is about to dispose of the whole or any part of his property, or
  2. is about to remove the whole or any part of his property from the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court

 The court may require the defendant to:

  1. furnish such security as the court may require, to produce before the court, whenever required, the property in question, or any portion thereof sufficient to satisfy the decree, or the value of the same; or
  2. to appear and show cause why he should not furnish security.

In case the defendant fails to furnish such security and within such time, as the court may require, the court may order that the property so specified, or any portion thereof as appears to be sufficient to satisfy the decree, be attached.[27]

An order of attachment under this rule without complying with the provisions of R. 5(1), i.e., without an order directing the defendant to furnish security within a specified period or to appear and show cause why he should not furnish security is a nullity.[28]

The remedy of attachment before judgement is of an extraordinary nature and must be exercised sparingly with utmost caution, lest the remedy becomes a tool for oppression.[29]

An order under Or 38, rr 5 & 6 is a grossly drastic one interfering with the fundamental rights of a person to have control over his property to deal with it in any manner he likes. Before such a stringent order is passed, it is to be seen that the same is not made merely for the asking of it by the plaintiff.[30] The court must insist upon strict proof of allegations in the petition for attachment before giving judgment, bare allegations are not enough.[31]

Appeal: An appeal lies against order of attachment under rule 6. No appeal, however, lies against an order refusing attachment under Rule 5, except where the discretion is not judicially exercised by the court.[32]


A defendant may, in a suit for debt or damages, deposit in the court at any stage of the suit such sum of money as he considers a satisfaction in full of the plaintiff’s claim.[33] The sum so deposited shall be paid to the plaintiff, unless the court directs otherwise.[34] The deposit, however, must be unconditional[35]  and no interest shall be allowed to the plaintiff on the sum deposited by the defendant.[36] Such payment, however, must not be allowed if the court is satisfied that the payment has been done only to save the payment of interest. [37]

If the payment is accepted by the plaintiff in full satisfaction of his claim, the court shall pronouncement to that effect accordingly. However, if the plaintiff accepts such payment as satisfaction in part of his claim, he is entitled to prosecute defendant for the balance.[38]


R 1: The rule states that the court may, at any stage of the suit, order the plaintiff to give security for the payment of costs of the defendant. The object of the rule is to provide protection to the defendants in certain cases where, in the event of success, they may have difficulty in realising their costs from the plaintiff.

Courts shall make such order in the following circumstances:

  1. Where plaintiff, or all of them where there are more than one, reside outside of India.
  2. The sole plaintiff or none of the plaintiffs has sufficient immovable property in India other than the suit property.    

R 2: If the plaintiff fails to furnish the security within the time fixed by the court, the court shall dismiss the suit or permit the plaintiff to withdraw therefrom. The court however, may restore the suit if it is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by any sufficient cause from furnishing the security within the time allowed.  


The power to issue commission is discretionary and can be exercised by the court for doing full justice between the parties. A commission may be issued for the following purposes:[39]

  1. Examine witnesses
  2. Make local investigation
  3. Adjust accounts
  4. Make partition
  5. Hold investigation
  6. Conduct sale
  7. Perform ministerial act.

To examine witnesses: A commission may be issued for examining a witness on the following grounds:

  1. If the witness resides within the local limits of the court’s jurisdiction, and
  2. Exempted from attending the court under the court[40]
  3. Sickness or infirmity[41]
  4. Expeditious disposal of the case, or in the interest of justice[42]
  1. Resides beyond the local limits of the jurisdiction of the court[43]
  2. Witness is about to leave the jurisdiction of the court[44]
  3. Witness is a government and cannot attend the court without detriment to the public service[45]
  4. Residing outside India and court is satisfied that his evidence is necessary[46]

Such a commission may be issued by the court either sou motu or on the application of any party to the suit or the witness being examined[47] and the evidence so taken forms a part of the record.[48]Such evidence, however, may not form a part of the evidence without the consent of the party against whom it is offered, unless: 

  1. the person who gave the evidence is beyond the jurisdiction of the Court, or dead or unable from sickness or infirmity to attend to be personally examined, or exempted from personal appearance in Court, or is a 4[person in the service of the Government] who cannot, in the opinion of the Court, attend without detriment to the public service, or
  2. the Court in its discretion dispenses with the proof of any such circumstances.[49]

To make local investigation: The object of conducting a local investigation is to obtain evidence which from its peculiar nature can be had only on the spot. The court may issue a commission directing a person to make local investigation and to report thereon for:[50]

  1. Elucidating and clarifying any matter in dispute
  2. Ascertaining the market value of any property or the amount of any mesne profits or damages or annual net profits

To adjust accounts: The court may issue a commission for examination or adjustment of the accounts if the court thinks it is necessary.[51] The evidence of the Commissioner shall form a part of the evidence in the suit.

Partition: After the passing of the preliminary decree for partition of immovable property, the court may issue a commission, to such person as it thinks fit, to make a partition or separation according to the rights declared in such decree.[52]

Scientific Investigation: Where any question arising in a suit involves any scientific investigation which cannot, in the opinion of the Court, be conveniently conducted before the Court, the Court may, if it thinks it necessary or expedient in the interests of justice so to do, issue a commission to such person as it thinks fit, directing him to inquire into such question and report thereon to the Court.[53]

Ministerial Act: When a question in a suit involves the performance of a ministerial act that cannot be conveniently performed before the Court, the Court may, if it is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient in the interests of justice, issue a commission to such person as it thinks fit, directing him to perform that ministerial act and report thereon to the Court.[54]

Conduct sale: Where, in any suit, it becomes necessary to sell any movable property which is in the custody of the Court pending the determination of the suit and which cannot be conveniently preserved, the Court may, if, for reasons to be recorded, it is of opinion that it is necessary or expedient in the interests of justice so to do, issue a commission to such person as it thinks fit, directing him to conduct such sale and report thereon to the Court.[55]


A receiver is a person who receives money of another and renders account for the same. The primary object behind the appointment of the receiver is to protect, preserve and manage the property during the pendency of the litigation.

R 1: Appointment-Where it appears to the court to be just and fair, it may appoint a receiver keeping in mind the following principles:[56]

  1. Appointment of a receiver is a discretionary power of the court
  2. It is a protective relief
  3. The plaintiff must prima facie prove that he has an excellent chance of succeeding in the suit.
  4. It is a harsh remedy and should be granted for the prevention of a manifest wrong or injury.
  5. As a general rule such an order is not made where it has the effect of depriving the defendant of a de facto possession, since that might cause irreparable loss to the defendant. But if the property is in the possession of no one, it will be in the common interest of all the parties to appoint a receiver.
  6. The conduct of the party who makes an application for appointment of receiver shall also be taken into consideration.

Powers: The court may confer the following powers on the receivers:

  1. Institute and defend suits
  2. Realise, manage, protect, preserve and improve the property
  3. Collect, apply and dispose of the rents and profits
  4. Execute documents
  5. Such other powers as it thinks fit.

R 3: Duties: Every receiver so appointed shall—

  1.  furnish such security if any as the Court thinks fit, duly to account for what he shall receive in respect of the property;
  2. submit his accounts at such periods and in such form as the Court directs;
  3. pay the amount due from him as the Court directs; and
  4. be responsible for any loss occasioned to the property by his wilful default or gross negligence.

R 4: Liabilities: If the receiver fails to perform his duties under the preceding rule, the Court may direct his property to be attached and may sell such property, and may apply the proceeds to make good any amount found to be due from him or any loss occasioned by him, and shall pay the balance if any

[1] (1977) 4 SCC 137

[2] Dalpat kumar v. Prahlad Singh (1992) 1 SCC 719

[3] Kishor Singh Ratan Singh Jadeja v Maruti Corporation, (2009) 11 SCC 229

[4] Takwani, C. K. Civil Procedure with Limitation Act, 1963. 8th ed., EBC, 2017.

[5] Krishnan Lal Kohli v. V.K. Khanna, AIR 1993 Del 356

[6] Martin Burn Ltd. v. RN Banerjee AIR 1958 SC 79

[7] Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan vs. Nawab Zulinquar Jahh Bahadur and others AIR 1975 A.P. 187 at pg. 190)

[8] 1975 AC 396

[9] S Radhakrishan v. K Narayandas, A 1982 AP 384

[10] Firm Manohar v. Firm Jai, 55 IC 403

[11] Sarkar. Code of Civil Procedure. 12th ed., vol. 2, Lexis Nexis, 2017.

[12] Praveen Travels Pvt. Ltd. v. Visteon Automotive Systems India Pvt. Ltd., 2002 (1) CTC 542

[13] Shiv Kumar Chadha v. Municipal Corpn. of Delhi (1993) 3 SCC 161 at pg. 177

[14] Ibid

[15] (1994) 4 SCC 225 at pg. 241

[16] AIR 2000 SC 3032

[17] Kudithi Lakshma Reddy v. Gantla Satti Reddy, AIR 2002 AP 418

[18] Asiatic Engineering Co. v. Achhruram, AIR 1951 All 746

[19] Shadi vs. Anrup Singh, ILR 112 All 436

[20] A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu v. S. Chellappan AIR 2000 SC 3032

[21] R 1, Order 38, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

[22] Proviso to R 1, Order 38, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

[23] Raman Tech. & Process Engg. Co. v. Solanki Traders (2008) 2 SCC 302

[24] R 2(1), Order 38, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

[25] R 2(2), Ibid

[26] Padam Sen v. State of UP AIR 1961 SC 218, pg. 220

[27] R 6, Order 38, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

[28] R 5(1), Order 38, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

[29] Ratan Kumar v. Howrah Motor co. AIR 1975 Cal 180, p. 181

[30] Kamala Panda v. Krishna Cloth Stores, A 1989 Orissa 229, pg. 233

[31] Renox Commercials Ltd. v. Invesnta Technologies Pvt. Ltd., AIR 2000 Mad 213

[32] Durga v. Nalin, 38 CWN 771

[33] R 1, O 24, CPC, 1908

[34] R 2, O 24, CPC, 1908

[35] Puran Chand v. Mangal Nayak AIR 1969 P&H 367

[36] R 3, O 24, CPC, 1908

[37] Dinesh Textiles v. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur AIR 1999 Raj 162

[38] Takwani, C. K. Civil Procedure with Limitation Act, 1963. 8th ed., EBC, 2017.

[39]  Sec. 75, CPC, 1908

[40] R 1, O 26, CPC, 1908

[41] Ibid

[42] R 4A, O 26, CPC, 1908

[43] R 4, O 26, CPC, 1908

[44] Ibid

[45] Ibid

[46] R 5, O 26, CPC, 1908

[47] R 2, Ibid

[48] R 7, Ibid

[49] R 8, Ibid

[50] R 9, Ibid

[51] R 11, Ibid

[52] R 13, Ibid

[53] R 10A, Ibid

[54] R 10B, Ibid

[55] R 10C, Ibid

[56] T. Krishnaswamy Chetty v. C. Thangavelu Chetty AIR 2910 Mad 430 at pp. 434-435

Siddharth jain and Co.

Siddharth Jain & Co. is a full service law firm providing quality and innovative legal solutions to clients all over the world. Our portfolio of legal and quasi-legal services is offered through our head office in New Delhi. Siddharth Jain & Co. was established in 2015. We have a team of lawyers with expertise in different fields. Our expertise revolves around 39 service areas and we continue to enter into new markets continuously. We continue to join new prospects and new clients with us every passing day due to our commitment to quality-based services. Our idea of working involves strict adherence to specified goals and creative modes of achieving them. Siddharth Jain & Co. has always worked towards attaining excellence in every case or problem presented. We continue to strive to become the leader in providing legal services in the country and abroad. Our clientele includes clients from all over the world. With several awards in our profile, we proudly continue to move forward. We are always ready and prepared to welcome and embrace any new challenge. We have worked with and for government agencies. We have worked in rural areas beyond any reach of technology. We have worked with clients alien to law whatsoever. But we have always maintained our prime goal and target of client satisfaction and would continue to go so in future.

Leave a Reply