Login
Subscribe

Mortgage: Transaction held to be not Mortgage

Picture of Stpl law

Stpl law

Filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree of the trial Court was upheld. (Para 1)

A notice dated 24.11.1978 was got issued by the father of the appellant to the vendee seeking execution of the Conveyance Deed back in favour of the vendor in terms of the Reconveyance Deed executed on 24.12.1973. The same was replied to by the vendee- Rudramma through her counsel on 02.12.1978 stating that the Sale Deed dated 24.12.1973 was not a mortgage by conditional sale. It was an outright sale of the property. (Para 3)

A suit was filed by Ganagaramaiah seeking permission from the Court to mortgage the property of the minor. A public notice was issued inviting objections. Vide order dated 27.09.1978 permission was granted to execute fresh Mortgage Deed in order to discharge the earlier mortgage for a sum of Rs. 7000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand). On 26.03.1987, the legal heirs of Rudramma sold the property in-question in favour of defendant no.4 in the suit, namely, N. Shashidar. Gangaramaiah died on 30.04.1987. (Para 4)

The prayer in the suit was for redemption of the mortgage. On interpretation of the documents, it is clearly made out that the intention of the vendor was to mortgage the property. (Para 6)

A perusal of the aforesaid proviso to sub-section (c) of Section 58 of the 1882 Act4 provides that no transaction shall be deemed to be a mortgage, unless the condition is embodied in the document which effects or purports to effect the sale. It is the undisputed case in hand that it was not a single document, the conditions contained wherein have to be considered by this Court to opine that the transaction was not a sale, but a mortgage. Admittedly, there are two separate documents. (Para 24)

In terms of the Sale Deed and the Reconveyance Deed, reconsidered in the light of the enunciation of law, as referred to above, in our opinion, the same cannot be held to be a transaction of mortgage of property. Sale of property initially, was absolute. By way of execution of Reconveyance Deed, namely, on the same day, the only right given to the appellants was to repurchase the property. (Para 31)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

2023 STPL(Web) 190 SC

[2023 INSC 743]

Prakash (Dead) By Lr Vs. G. Aradhya & Ors.

Civil Appeal No. 706 of 2015-Decided on 18-8-2023

https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/2023-STPLWeb-190-SC.pdf

Share
Next Story

Consumer

September 7, 2025 No Comments
Next Story

Contract: Demurrage not allowed

May 20, 2024 No Comments

Indian Contract Act, 1872 – Demurrage – Contractual Liability – Liquidated Damages – Breach of Contract – Adjudication of Claims – The petitioner, engaged in transportation business, participated in a competitive bidding process and was awarded a transportation contract by the Food Corporation of India (FCI). Dispute arose when FCI began deducting demurrage charges from petitioner’s bills for alleged delay in unloading wagons, despite petitioner not being responsible for wagon unloading.

The petitioner contested the deduction, arguing that as per the contract, demurrage cannot be unilaterally imposed by FCI unless liability is determined through due process of law.

The Court examined the relevant contract clause, which allowed FCI to recover costs, damages, etc., due to contractor’s negligence, but found it did not specifically authorize demurrage deduction.

Relying on the Supreme Court precedent in Food Corporation of India vs. Abhijit Paul, the Court held that demurrage could not be levied on the petitioner as the contract did not assign the task of wagon unloading to them.

The absence of a liquidated damages clause in the contract further supported the Court’s decision. The Court directed FCI to refund the deducted demurrage amount and refrain from further deductions, unless liability is determined through lawful adjudication.The order did not prevent FCI from seeking damages through proper legal channels. (Para 12, 15, 18, 22)

GAUHATI HIGH COURT

2023 STPL(Web) 184 Gauhati

[2024 STPL 1652 Gauhati]

Hi Speed Logistics Pvt Ltd. Vs. Food Corporation Of India And 5 Ors.

WP(C) 6317 of 2022-Decided on 8-11-2023

Share
Next Story

Breach of peace: It must disturb public order, not just personal peace

May 20, 2024 No Comments

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 145, 146- Breach of peace – Emergency situation – Possession dispute – Civil litigation – Non-application of mind – Proceeding under Section 145 – Attachment under Section 146 – The application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenges the orders by the Executive Magistrate, concerning a dispute under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and subsequent attachment under Section 146(1) of the same.

The petitioner contests the legality of both orders, asserting that the initiation of the proceeding and the attachment were illegal and an abuse of process. It’s argued that the jurisdiction under Section 145 can only be invoked if there’s a likelihood of a breach of peace, which wasn’t sufficiently demonstrated in this case.

The petitioner highlights that the attachment order was passed ex-parte without affording them an opportunity to respond, which is contrary to the exceptional circumstances required for such an order. Reference is made to legal precedent discouraging parallel criminal proceedings when a civil litigation is pending regarding property possession, emphasizing the binding nature of civil court decrees.

The respondents counter by claiming entitlement to the land based on a partition deed and subsequent court judgments. They argue that emergency circumstances justified the attachment due to the petitioner’s attempt to construct on disputed land.

Legal precedents are cited to emphasize that the existence of an emergency, not just the use of the term “emergency,” warrants attachment under Section 146.

The judgment critically examines the orders and the circumstances leading to them. It observes discrepancies between the assertions made in the complaint and police report, highlighting the absence of clear grounds for apprehension of breach of peace.The judgment reiterates the requirement for a dispute likely to cause a breach of peace under Section 145, emphasizing that it must disturb public order, not just personal peace.

It concludes that the impugned orders suffer from non-application of mind and jurisdictional error, resulting in injustice to the petitioner. Consequently, both orders are quashed, and the petition is allowed. Important Paragraph Numbers of Judgment: (Para 13, 19, 30, 31)

GAUHATI HIGH COURT

2023 STPL(Web) 183 Gauhati

[2024 STPL 1651 Gauhati]

Md. Osman Ali Saikia And Anr. Vs. Chand Mahamod Saikia And 2 Ors.

Crl.Pet. 239 of 2021-Decided on 8-11-2023

https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/2023-STPLWeb-183-Gauhati.pdf

 

Share
Next Story

Electricity: Outstanding arrears from previous owner

May 20, 2024 No Comments

Constitution of India, Article 226 – Assam Electricity Regulatory Commission [Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters] Regulations, 2004 – Electricity Act, 2003 – Section 43, 49, 50, 56 – Electricity – Outstanding arrears from previous owner – The petitioner, a partnership firm, sought a writ petition under Article 226 challenging a decision by the Assam Power Distribution Company Limited (APDCL) to deny a new electricity connection to their premises due to outstanding arrears from previous electricity bills.

The court directed interim relief for immediate electricity connection, subject to 50% payment of outstanding dues, with the remaining 50% to be paid upon dismissal of the writ petition.

The petitioner participated in an auction sale of a property and purchased a portion of land with a Business Centre cum Market Complex. They subsequently applied for a new electricity connection, which was denied by APDCL citing outstanding dues.

The court referred to the Assam Electricity Regulatory Commission [Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters] Regulations, 2004 and the Electricity Act, 2003. It cited a Supreme Court decision (K.C. Ninan vs. Kerala State Electricity Board) regarding the liability of auction purchasers for previous dues in properties sold on ‘as is where is’ basis.

The court dismissed the writ petition, holding the petitioner liable for outstanding electricity dues as per the auction sale agreement. It directed the petitioner to pay the outstanding dues as per the interim order, with APDCL waiving the accrued interest on the principal dues. (Para 15, 16)

GAUHATI HIGH COURT

2023 STPL(Web) 182 Gauhati

[2024 STPL 1650 Gauhati]

M/S Borah And Companyjiban Phukan Nagar Vs. Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. And 3 Ors.

WP(C) 989 of 2014-Decided on 7-11-2023

2023 STPL(Web) 182 Gauhati

Share

Recent Articles