Review Petition-M/S. Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd Vs. Lalan Kumar Singh & Anr – Supreme Court
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here […]
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here […]
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
Pyare Lal Vs. State of Haryana – Supreme Court Read Post »
The Court held that it is a settled position that a Court can set aside the award only on the grounds as provided in the Arbitration Act as interpreted in various judgments. It is also settled law that where two views are possible, the Court cannot interfere in the plausible view taken by the arbitrator supported by reasoning. That usually the Court is not required to examine the merits of the interpretation provided in the award by the arbitrator, if it comes to a conclusion that such an interpretation was reasonably possible. As held by the Supreme Court Court in Satyabrata Ghose v. Mugneeram Bangur & Co., AIR 1954 SC 44 that when the parties have not provided for what would take place when an event which renders the performance of the contract impossible, then Section 56 of the Contract Act applies. When the act contracted for becomes impossible, then under Section 56, the parties are exempted from further performance and the contract becomes void.
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
Dyna Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Crompton Greaves Ltd. – Supreme Court Read Post »
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
The Maharashtra State Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Babulal Lade & Ors. – Supreme Court Read Post »
Hon’ble Supreme Court considering Vishal N. Kalsaria Case (2017) ibclaw.in 37 SC and Harshad Govardhan Case (2017) ibclaw.in 36 SC held that in our view, the objective of SARFAESI Act, coupled with the T.P. Act and the Rent Act are required to be reconciled herein in the following manner:
a) If a valid tenancy under law is in existence even prior to the creation of the mortgage, the tenant’s possession cannot be disturbed by the secured creditor by taking possession of the property. The lease has to be determined in accordance with Section 111 of the TP Act for determination of leases. As the existence of a prior existing lease inevitably affects the risk undertaken by the bank while providing the loan, it is expected of Banks/Creditors to have conducted a standard due diligence in this regard. Where the bank has proceeded to accept such a property as mortgage, it will be presumed that it has consented to the risk that comes as a consequence of the existing tenancy. In such a situation, the rights of a rightful tenant cannot be compromised under the SARFAESI Act proceedings.
b) If a tenancy under law comes into existence after the creation of a mortgage, but prior to the issuance of notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, it has to satisfy the conditions of Section 65ÂA of the T.P. Act.
c) In any case, if any of the tenants claim that he is entitled to possession of a secured asset for a term of more than a year, it has to be supported by the execution of a registered instrument. In the absence of a registered instrument, if the tenant relies on an unregistered instrument or an oral agreement accompanied by delivery of possession, the tenant is not entitled to possession of the secured asset for more than the period prescribed under Section 107 of the T.P. Act.
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me Forgot Password In case you’ve already logged in, click here
Jayesh H. Pandya & Anr. Vs. Subhtex India Ltd. & Ors. – Supreme Court Read Post »