Short answer. Yes, that is one of the listed grounds. Attachment may issue against a party guilty of fraud in contracting the debt or incurring the obligation sued upon, or in the performance of it. The fraud must attach to the very obligation you are suing on, not to the debtor's conduct generally.
What the law says
(d) In an action against a party who has been guilty of a fraud in contracting the debt or incurring the obligation upon which the action is brought, or in the performance thereof
Rule 57, Section 1 — Grounds upon which attachment may issue. Read the full provision →
What the law says
as security for the satisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered
Rule 57, Section 1 — Grounds upon which attachment may issue. Read the full provision →
The ground covers fraud at two stages
Paragraph (d) of Section 1 is broader than it first appears because it names two moments. Attachment may issue against a party who has been guilty of fraud in contracting the debt or incurring the obligation upon which the action is brought, or fraud in the performance thereof. The first is fraud at the inception: misrepresentation that induced you to part with money or to enter the arrangement at all. The second is fraud committed later, in how the obligation was carried out. A creditor who was dealt with honestly at the outset is not shut out of this ground if the deceit came afterwards.
The fraud must concern the obligation sued upon
The words upon which the action is brought are the limit on the ground, and they are easy to read past. What must be shown is fraud connected to the very obligation being litigated. Evidence that the defendant has behaved dishonestly in other dealings, or has a poor reputation, does not fit the paragraph however true it may be. The question is narrower and more concrete: was there fraud in contracting this debt, or in performing it? Framing an application around that question is a different exercise from cataloguing everything the other side has done.
Fraud is not the same as failure to pay
A debtor who cannot pay has not, by that fact, committed fraud. Non-payment is the ordinary subject of a collection case and the ordinary reason a creditor goes to court. If simple default were enough, paragraph (d) would make attachment available in essentially every money case, which is not how the section is built: it lists particular situations rather than granting the remedy at large. What distinguishes this ground is deceit affecting the obligation, shown from the circumstances, not disappointment about an unpaid balance.
What the writ does and when to seek it
Attachment is provisional. The property of the adverse party is held as security for the satisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered, which means it neither pays the claim nor decides it. The remedy may be sought at the commencement of the action or at any time before entry of judgment, so a creditor who learns of the fraud after filing has not lost the opportunity. Because the application turns on establishing fraud rather than merely alleging it, this is one to prepare with counsel and with the documents that show what was represented and when.