Mesne Profits on continuation of possession
Case BriefsSupreme Court

In the matter at hand, the Court directed the tenant to deposit Rs.5,15,05,512/-, considering the location of the demised premises in the heart of Kolkata, the rent, the alleged non-payment of rent, the default in payment of interest, as alleged.

2024 SCC Vol. 1 Part 5
Cases ReportedSCC Weekly

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Ss. 7 and 238-A — Limitation period for initiating CIRP: Documents reflecting acknowledgments of debts i.e.

Sale of Immovable Property
Experts CornerShardul Amarchand Mangaldas

by Ajit Warrier*
Cite as: 2024 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 18

Decoding Mortgage Redemption in Banking
Op EdsOP. ED.

by Abhishek Saini†

Right of Redemption
Op EdsOP. ED.

by Srihari Saranathan†

actionable claim
Case BriefsSupreme Court

After applying the rule that all the contemporaneous documents are to be read together, to discern the true purport of the contract, Supreme Court said that the parties intended assignment of the debt, i.e., the rents payable.

position of secured creditors
Op EdsOP. ED.

by Govinda Asawa† and Pranay Agarwal††

Law School NewsOthers

Reported by Hemang Mankar

2023 scc vol. 7 part 3
Cases ReportedSCC Weekly

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — S. 31(7)(a) — Award of interest: Principles clarified relating to validity of award of interest, when

calcutta high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Calcutta High Court remanded the eviction case to First Appellate Court on finding that the alleged construction was outside the tenancy property.

2023 scc vol. 6 part 5
Cases ReportedSCC Weekly

Criminal Law — Criminal Trial — Circumstantial Evidence — Generally: Principles reiterated relating to essential conditions that must be fulfilled before conviction

Op EdsOP. ED.

by Anushka PS†

conferring rights in immovable property
Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court said that the entry of the appellant over part of the suit property is simply as a licencee of the respondent. He does not continue to occupy it in the capacity of the owner. Thus, the licence having been terminated, he has no right to remain in possession but to restore possession to the person having rightful possessory title over it.

madras high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madras High Court said that after divorce when the spouses have ceased to be husband and wife, proprietary right of both the spouses also get affected.

unregistered agreement to sell as evidence
Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court said that as per proviso to Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 an unregistered document affecting immovable property may be received as evidence of a contract in a suit for specific performance under Chapter-II of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, or as evidence of any collateral transaction not required to be effected by registered instrument, subject to Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act.

Abatement of suit
Case BriefsSupreme Court

Placing its reliance on Bhurey Khan v Yaseen Khan 1995 Supp (3) SCC 331, the Bench stated that the suit will not abate for the reason of non-substitution of all legal representatives of the deceased if the suit was substantially represented.

Kerala High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Kerala High Court held that once loan is repaid, the bank is not entitled to withhold the title deed merely on the grounds that the petitioner has transferred the property during the subsistence of mortgage.

District Court, Gurgaon
Case BriefsDistrict Court

While dealing with a suit for execution of sale deed of property filed in 2014, which was allegedly bought in 1992 through oral agreement, the Gurgaon District Court found the same based on forged and fabricated documents and refused to allow the claim.

Case BriefsSupreme Court

In a suit property where father executed a release deed for relinquishment of rights for valuable consideration, Supreme Court held that the effect of principle of estoppel cannot be warded off by appellants claiming through their father whose conduct generated this estoppel.

Madras High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madras High Court said that Rule 55-A is delegated legislation which cannot go beyond the scope of the Parent Act viz., the Registration Act as well the Transfer of Property Act which is the substantive law governing the transfer of immovable properties. Hence, it is held that the first proviso is clearly ultra vires and unconstitutional.