Whether Registration & Stamping of memorandum of deposit of Title Deeds is essential for creation of a valid mortgage? – By Adv. Rohit Dubey

Article 7 of the Schedule 1A to Indian Stamp Act, 1899, as applicable to M.P. provides that, Any instrument evidencing an agreement relating to the deposit of title deeds or instruments constituting or being evidence of the title to any property, where such deposit has been made by way of security for the repayment of money advanced or to be advanced by way of loan or an existing or future debt.  The Explanation II to this Article specifically states that, “any letter, note or memorandum or writing, relating to the deposit of title deeds, whether written or made before, or at the time of, or after, the deposit of title deeds is effected, and whether it is in respect of the first loan or any subsequent loan, such loan, such letter, note, memorandum or writing shall, in the absence of any separate agreement relating to the deposit of title deeds, be deemed to be an instrument evidencing an agreement relating to the deposit of title deeds.” In simpler terms, what the explanation says is that when the terms of mortgage have been reduced to writing upon deposit of title deeds, it will be deemed to be an agreement governing the deposit of title deeds and such a written agreement is not enforceable unless duly stamped in pursuance to section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act. In this article I have provided a brief overview upon the laws applicable to creation, stamping and registration of memorandum of deposit of title deeds. But, any opinion as to any particular transaction may be different on case to case basis.

Chennai Bench of NCLAT will start its functioning from 25.01.2021 through Virtual Mode

Chennai Bench of National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) will start its functioning from 25.01.2021 through Virtual Mode. Therefore, the filing of Fresh Appeals against the orders of the Benches of the National Company Law Tribunal having jurisdiction in respect of States of Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana and Union Territories of Lakshadweep and Puducherry shall have to be made before the Chennai Bench of NCLAT w.e.f. 25.01.2021. Further, the filing of Interlocutory Applications / Reply / Rejoinder etc. in respect of aforementioned appeals will also be made before the Chennai Bench of NCLAT as per NCLAT Rules, 2016 and SOP.

Webinar Recoding on Pre-Packaged Insolvency Resolution Process dated 20.01.2021

Webinar Recording on Proposed pre- Pack Insolvency Resolution Process Under IBC Time : 20th January, 2021 at 4:00 pm to 5:30 PM Esteemed panel: Guest of Honour: Shri Sudhaker Shukla, Whole Time Member, IBBI Special Address : Shri Rajnish Goenka, Chairman, MSME…

Successful Resolution Applicants Granted Immunity against Criminal Liability – Adv. Pooja Upadhya

The impugned judgment is a welcome step, inspiring confidence in favour of Resolution Applicants who can confidently submit resolution plans in debt ridden Corporate Debtors facing criminal charges or liabilities. Through this judgement, the Supreme Court has sought to resolve a long standing ambiguity prevailing between PMLA & IBC, which is, ‘whether the Enforcement Directorate is empowered to attach Corporate Debtor’s assets if the said property/ies were acquired with the proceeds of crime, to the detriment of a successful Resolution Applicant?.’ The Apex Court has answered the above confusion with a “No” and has clearly ring- fenced all criminal liabilities in so far as a Corporate Debtor and its assets are concerned in support of successful Resolution Applicants.

Impact of increased IBC Threshold on pending proceedings : Prospective or Retrospective Application? – Jeetu Tolani

It is well settled principle of statutory interpretation that the intention behind the statute is to be used in interpreting its provisions. A similar argument was made by the Corporate Debtor in Arrowline Organic Products (supra) by placing reliance on the context of COVID-19 amidst which the announcement of enhancement of limit of default was made by the Finance Minister. The slew of measures undertaken by the Government for bolstering the growth of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (“MSME”) Industry and the report of Insolvency Law Committee dated 20.02.2020 were also pressed by the Corporate Debtor to substantiate the argument of beneficial interpretation of the Notification. The Tribunal, however, correctly used only the report of the Insolvency Law Committee where the policy behind the enhancement of the limit of default was discussed and the same is focusing on higher value cases for better use of adjudication machinery for resolving financial distress. The outbreak of COVID-19 and other beneficial measures for the MSME sector are coincidental to the enhancement and aren’t the causes behind the same.

/* Copy to Clipboard */