Legal Reference Library

The Chhattisgarh High Court, in Manik Mehta vs. UCO Bank, has observed that even when the secured asset belongs to the guarantor, the borrower can also prefer an appeal to the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). In the present case, the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT) has found that under Section 17 of the Act, 2002, any person (including the borrower), aggrieved by any of the measures referred to in sub-section (4) of Section 13 may prefer an appeal to the DRT, however, in the instant case, the property of the guarantor having been auctioned, the borrower is not an aggrieved party. The DRAT had upheld the DRT order, which held that the borrower for whose credit facility the property was mortgaged has the right to challenge the recovery proceedings since the mortgager has the right to proceed against the principal borrower to realize the money that he had to pay to liquidate the dues of the principal borrower. Setting aside the DRAT order, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra observe...

In Ramvilas (Dead) Thr. Lrs. Vs. Karim Khan, the question before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was whether whenever a conveyance of the property by a Sale Deed is accompanied by a separate document, it has to be taken as re-conveyance and it was not a mortgage. The Hon'ble court held that in Bhaskar Waman Joshi (D) and Ors. v. Shrinarayan Rambilas Agarwal, this Court has succinctly considered the question as to whether a transaction ostensibly of a sale may be regarded as a mortgage and held that it is one of intention of the parties to be gathered from the language of the deed interpreted in the light of the surrounding circumstances.

Limitation Act, 1963 — Art. 61 — Usufructuary mortgage : There is no fixed time-limit for usufructuary mortgagor to seek redemption and recovery of possession of immovable property mortgaged. Right to seek redemption, would accrue not from date of creation of mortgage but from date of payment of mortgage money out of usufructs or partly out of usufructs and partly on payment or deposit by mortgagor as provided under S. 62 of TP Act. Until then, limitation would not start under Art. 61 and as such, mere expiry of period prescribed thereunder would not extinguish mortgagor’s right of redemption and entitle mortgagee to seek declaration of title and ownership over mortgaged property. Singh Ram v. Sheo Ram, (2014) 9 SCC 185

                                                                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION                 WRIT PETITION NO.73 OF 2014 GSL (India) Ltd.                                       ... Petitioner          v/s     Asset Reconstruction Co. (India) Ltd. ... Respondents 46. We have carefully perused the reasoning of the Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Amish Jain1 and with the great respect and utmost humility, we are unable to agree with the view expressed therein. Firstly, we are unable to agree with the finding of t...

A two judge bench of the Supreme Court of India in Chief Controlling Revenue Authority v. Coastal Gujarat Power Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 6054 of 2015 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 32319 of 2013) has set aside an order passed by the High Court of Gujarat on 3 December 2012 in Stamp Reference No. 1/2011, holding that a mortgage deed with security trustee to secure loans of multiple banks would be treated as distinct transactions and would be liable for stamp duty as if separate mortgage deeds were recorded for each bank (Supreme Court Judgment). The High Court had observed that the stamp duty is payable on the instrument and not the transaction. As per the High Court the instrument was a mortgage deed between a borrower (mortgagor) and a security trustee (mortgagee). It was the security trustee alone who had the power to enforce the mortgage and not the banks. The High Court observed that Section 5 cannot be construed to empower the State to levy duty on the transaction as opposed to the...

1) Valji Khimj i and Company Vs. Official Liquidator of Hindustan 2) Nitro Product (Gujarat) Limi ted and others - (2008) 9 SCC 299 3) United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon and others - (2010) 8 SCC 110 4) Narandas Karsondas Vs. S.A. Kamtam and another - (1977) 3 SCC 247 5) Ram Kishun and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others - (2012) 11 SCC 511. 6) Mardia Chemicals Ltd. and others Vs. Union of India & others. - (2004) 4 SCC 311 7) Transcore Vs. Union of India and another reported in (2008) 1 SCC 125 8) Eastern Counties etc. Railway Vs. Marriage reported in (1861) 9 HLC 32 9) Bhinka and others Vs. Charan Singh reported in AIR 1959 SC 960 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 1927-1929 OF 2014 (@ SLP (C) NO(S).21433-21435 OF 2010) Mathew Varghese ….Appellant VERSUS M. Amritha Kumar & Ors. .…Respondents J U D G M E N T Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. ............. 26. When we analyze...

2014 STPL(Web) 532 SC SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (T.S. THAKUR, C. NAGAPPAN AND ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.) SINGH RAM (D) THR. L.RS. Appellants VERSUS SHEO RAM & ORS. Respondents Civil Appeal No.5198 of 2008 with Civil Appeal No. 7941 of 2014 @ S.L.P.(C) No. 26861 of 2008, Civil Appeal No. 1113 of 2009, Civil Appeal No. 7942 of 2014 @ S.L.P.(C) No. 2097 of 2009, Civil Appeal No. 7943 of 2014 @ S.L.P.(C) No. 6355 of 2009 Civil Appeal No. 5562 of 2009, Civil Appeal No. 7944 of 2014 @ S.L.P.(C) No. 22604 of 2009, Civil Appeal No. 7947 of 2014 @ S.L.P.(C) No. 23963 of 2009, Civil Appeal No. 8551 of 2009, Civil Appeal No. 7948 of 2014 @ S.L.P.(C) No. 25422 of 2011, Civil Appeal No. 7951 of 2014 @ S.L.P.(C) No. 34380 of 2011, Civil Appeal No. 7953 of 2014 @ S.L.P.(C) No. 1274 of 2012, Civil Appeal No. 7954 of 2014 @ S.L.P.(C) No. 1275 of 2012, Civil Appeal No. 5256 of 2012, Civil Appeal No. 7955 of 2014 @ S.L.P.(C) No. 19048 of 2012, Civil Appeal No. 7956-58 of 2014 @ S.L.P.(C) Nos. 772-...