Legal Reference Library

While relying upon the Supreme Court decision in State of Karnataka v. Shreyas Papers Pvt. Ltd., 2006 (1) SCC 615 the Division Bench comprising of S. C. Dharmadhikari, B.P. Colabawalla, JJ. held that no charge can be enforced against a property legitimately purchased for consideration by the transferee if he has had no notice, either actual or constructive, of the charge. In the instant case, when a defaulter company could not repay the loan taken from the respondent bank, the bank took physical possession of a property belonging to the defaulter company under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act and invited offers for sale of the said property. On 1st September, 2010 the petitioners placed their bid for purchasing the property at Rs. 11,00,29,000. Thereafter, a Deed of Conveyance was registered in favour of the petitioners with the Registrar of Assurances on 10th March, 2011. At the time of registration, the petitioners perused the 7/12 extract relating to the property and learnt that t...

The Supreme Court has held that an interim order made before, during or even after an award by an arbitrator will continue in force till the award is enforced. Interpreting Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the court stated so in the appeal of UltraTech Cement Ltd against the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court which had ruled in favour of the state Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. In this case, the two parties signed an agreement by which UltraTech was allowed to take away fly ash free for five years and thereafter at the rate fixed by the Nigam. After a few years, the Nigam invited tenders for sale of fly ash. The cement company moved the civil court seeking a restraint. The judge allowed it. But the Rajasthan High Court set it aside.  The cement company moved the Supreme Court, pointing out that arbitration was pending and therefore the rate should not be changed. The court passed an interim order restricting the sale of fly ash. After the award, the question aros...

Kerala High Court has declared that an Arbitral Tribunal cannot pass an order to enforce its order by directing the Advocate Commissioner/Receiver to repossess the vehicle from the opposite party. Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque observed that enforcement can be only through a civil court. Some vehicle owners who had availed loan from financiers had approached the High Court complaining that the interim order of repossession passed by the Arbitral Tribunal is enforced/being attempted to be enforced without putting the orders for enforcement, following the procedures under the Code of Civil Procedure. The Tribunal had ordered appointment of an Advocate Commissioner/Receiver to repossess the vehicle either directly or with the assistance of police. Power of High Court to directly interfere with Arbitral Award/Interim Orders of Tribunal Justice Musaque has first considered the question whether High Court can interfere with Arbitral Award/Interim Orders of Tribunal and answered it as follows; T...