Legal Reference Library

Deciding on an appeal in a case concerning unjust enrichment and subrogation, the Court with the majority of 4:1 held that the appellant was enriched as she received the freehold of the property free of any charge, instead of receiving it subject to a charge to secure her parents’ indebtedness to the Bank (a “Charge”) and her enrichment was at the expense of the bank. Giving reasons the Court stated that the appellant was enriched at the expense of the Bank because the value of the property given to the appellant was considerably greater than it would have been but for the avoidance of the charge and the Bank was left without the security which was central to the whole arrangement. According to the facts, the appellant is the owner of 2 Great Oak Court (“the Property”), bought by her parents (in her name as a gift to her) as a family home for her, her siblings and her parents. The respondent Bank had two charges, securing the parents’ borrowing, totalling about £2.2 million over the p...

Supreme Court of United Kingdom- Deciding on the issue whether the court should order the return to France of two little girls who have been living with their mother in Scotland since July 2013, the Court unanimously dismissed the appeal filed by the father and observed that, for the purposes of ‘habitual residence’, the stability of residence, rather than its degree of permanence, is important. The present appeal before the Court concerns the application of Article 3 of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (‘the Convention’) which states that it is unlawful to remove or retain a child in breach of rights of custody attributed to a person under the law of the state in which the child was ‘habitually resident’ immediately before removal or retention. The Court, hence, delved into the discussion as to what elements constitute a ‘habitual residence’ and noted that for the purposes of applying the Hague Convention, ‘habitual residence’ is to be determi...

1. Is a dispute brought before the Company Law Board invoking the provisions of Sections 397, 398 and 402 of the Companies Act, 1956 at all referable to a private tribunal, viz., an arbitral panel for resolution? Does a decision of a foreign court on the question of whether a dispute is covered by an arbitration agreement bind the Company Law Board? These are among the questions of law canvassed in this group of appeals. List of Authorities & Decisions Referred/Cited 1. Haryana Telecom Ltd v Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd, (1999) 5 SCC 688. 2. Bennett Coleman & Co. v Union of India & Ors., 1977 (47) Comp Cas 92 3. Manavendra Chitnis & Anr. v Leela Chitnis Studios P. Ltd. & Ors., 1985 (58) Comp Cas 113 4. Surendra Kumar Dhawan & Anr. v R. Vir & Ors., [1977] 47 Comp Cas 276 (Delhi) 5. O.P. Gupta v Shiv General Finance (P.) Ltd. & Ors., [1977] 47 Comp Cas 279 (Delhi) 6. Das Lagerway Wind Turbines Ltd. v Cynosure Investments P. Ltd., [2009] 147 Com...