Ms. Usha Mehra, J. ( 1 ) BY this composite application under Order 38 Rule 5and Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 C. P. C. , the plaintiff seeks attachment before the judgmentof the containers of the defendants or to furnish security and further the defendantsbe restrained from alienating the goods stored in or lying in the containers orremoving the containers from outside the jurisdiction of this Court. ( 2 ). This application has been contested by the defendants. Mr. R. K. Saini,appearing for the defendants contended that in order to attract the provisions ofrule 5 of Order 38, the plaintiff was to plead and prima facie establish theingredients of Rule 5 namely that the defendant with intent to obstruct or delay theexecution of any decree that may be passed against him (i) is about to dispose ofthe whole or any part of his property; or (ii) is about to remove the whole or any partof his property from the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court. In this case,from the perusal of the application it cannot be inferred that the defendants aregoing to dispose of any part of his property or is going to remove the same outsidethe jurisdiction of this Court. The only apprehension expressed,-in this applicationis, that the defendant No. 1 being a Japanese concern has no assets available withinthe jurisdiction of this Court and, therefore, necessary order attaching the containers of defendant No. 1 be passed. The averments are vague. This is not what isstipulated under Rule 5 of Order 38. Therefore, relying on the decisions reportedin 1994 (4) Apex Decision 332, AIR 1989 Delhi 60, AIR 19870rissa 107,1989 A. P. 914and AIR 1985 Karnataka 282, Mr. Saini contended that no ground is made out forattachment of defendants goods before judgment. ( 3 ). As regards, the question whether ad interim injunction can be granted, Mr. Saini contended that even for an order under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, the plaintiff wasto show that the property in dispute is in danger of being wasted, damaged oralienated by any party to the suit, or that the defendant threatens, or intends toremove or dispose of his property with a view to defraud his creditors, or threatensto dispossess the plaintiff. The averments of the plaint do not fall under theprovision of Rule I of Order 39, nor Rule 2 can be attracted in the facts of this case. There is in fact no repetition or continuance of breach committed by the defendant. Therefore Rule 2 is also not attracted. ( 4 ). In order to appreciate the objection raised by the defendant, the facts of thecase have to be appreciated. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff enteredinto a contract for the supply of caustic soda flakes to be delivered to the end buyerin China. The said goods were consigned through the Agency of the defendants. Goods were handed to the defendants at ICD New Delhi and thereafter loaded onvessel at Bombay for eventual discharge at Xingang, China. The defendant No. 1delivered the goods to the end buyer in violation and contrary to the establishedinternationally accepted practice. It is well settled international practice thatdelivery of the goods should have been given only upon presentation of the originalbill of lading or the valid bank guarantee. The delivery of the goods by thedefendants without obtaining the bill of lading or the valid bank guarantee hasconstituted a breach of terms and conditions of the contract of carriage. Thedefendant being a foreign company having no assets in India, if the interest of theplaintiff is not safeguarded by passing appropriate interlocutory order, the plaintiffwould suffer irreparable loss. ( 5 ). To decide this application, we have to keep in mind three things as towhether plaintiff has made out a prima fade case, balance of convenience is in hisfavour and if no injunction granted whether he will suffer irreparable loss. Admittedly, the goods had been delivered by defendant No. 1 to the end buyer withoutobtaining the bill of lading. The House of Lords on appeal from the Court of Appealof the colony of Singapore in the case of Sze Hai Tong Bank Ltd. v. Rambler Cycleco. Ltd. , J. C. I 959 page 576 while dealing with the interpretation of the contract, theexception Clause in the Conversion Clause and the responsibility of the Carrierwhen the goods were released without production of bill of lading held that a shipowner who delivers without production of the bill of lading does so at his peril. Ltd. , J. C. I 959 page 576 while dealing with the interpretation of the contract, theexception Clause in the Conversion Clause and the responsibility of the Carrierwhen the goods were released without production of bill of lading held that a shipowner who delivers without production of the bill of lading does so at his peril. Indelivering the goods, without production of the bill of lading, to a person who, toits knowledge, was other than one entitled under the bill of lading to receive them,the carrier was liable for breach of contract and for conversion, and was notprotected by the exception clause 2 (c ). Therefore, in view of the circumstancesexplained prima fade, it can be said that the plaintiff has made out a case of breachon the part of the defendants for having delivered the goods without obtaining thebill of lading. ( 6 ). Turning to the second point regarding balance of convenience, one can saythat if directions are not passed to safeguard or protect the interest of the plaintiff,and if defendant No. 1 is allowed to take away its entire goods i. e. the containersfrom out of the jurisdiction of this Court, plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss,because defendant is a foreign national having no other assets available. Therefore,in these circumstances, balance of convenience is also in plaintiff s favour. It is notproper for Mr. Saini to contend that no interlocutory order can be passed irrespective of the fact that prima fade case is made out by the plaintiff and also when thebalance of convenience is also in his favour. The principles of law for the grant ofinterlocutory order have been enunciated by the Supreme Court when it is statedthat if the prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff is made outand so is the balanceof convenience then in such an eventuality in order to safeguard the interest of theplaintiff and to save him from the losses he may suffer if ultimately decree is passedand the defendants by then have already left the country, he will be deprived of thefruits of his decree. In this view of the matter I think it would meet the end of justiceif directions are given to defendant No. 1 to at least always keep with him so muchof the containers in India which are worth Rs. 16,00,000. 00 (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs only ).