### Respondent Cannot Deny Jural Relationship in Civil Suit After Admitting Liability Through TDS Deposits

The appellant (plaintiff) initiated a suit for the recovery of money lent and advanced to the respondent (defendant)

The respondent had deposited Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) with Income Tax authorities on behalf of the appellant, acknowledging the loan transaction in tax filings

However, in the civil suit, the respondent contended that the loan was arranged by one Mr. Anil Chowdhury and was repayable to him, denying liability to the appellant

The appellant filed an application (IA No. GA/1/2023) for injunction and attachment before judgment, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on January 31, 2025

The appellant challenged this dismissal in the present appeal.

1. Whether the appellant established a prima facie case for the grant of interim protection based on the respondent’s acknowledgement of a jural relationship through TDS deposits

2. Whether the respondent can be permitted to take a stand in civil proceedings that is diametrically opposite to the disclosures made before Income Tax authorities

3. Whether the requirements for an order of attachment before judgment/injunction were satisfied

The court applied Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), which requires the simultaneous satisfaction of two conditions for attachment before judgment: the existence of a prima facie case and the danger of the defendant removing assets from the court's jurisdiction

The court cited Raman Tech. and Process Engg. Co. and Anr. v. Solanki Traders (AIR Online 2007 SC 80) to emphasize these twin requirements

Additionally, the court applied the equitable doctrine against "approbating and reprobating," holding that a party cannot take contradictory stands before different authorities to suit their convenience

The Court found that the TDS certificate issued by the respondent to the appellant served as a clear acknowledgment of a jural relationship, as it documented the interest paid on the loan

The court characterized the respondent’s defense—that the money was payable to a third party despite tax filings showing otherwise—as "dishonest" and "diametrically opposite" to their representations to the Income Tax authorities

While acknowledging the strict requirements of Order XXXVIII Rule 5 per Raman Tech., the Court held that a prima facie case was overwhelmingly established and the balance of convenience favored the appellant

The Court reasoned that the appellant would suffer irreparable injury if the respondent were allowed to deny the debt after having invited tax authorities to assess returns based on the existence of said debt

It held that the respondent cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate regarding the jural relationship

The Court passed an order in terms of the prayer for injunction and directed the respondent to file an affidavit-of-assets within a fortnight, specifically indicating bank balances as of April 27, 2026