{"id":203304,"date":"2018-10-09T10:00:57","date_gmt":"2018-10-09T04:30:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=203304"},"modified":"2018-10-11T10:56:52","modified_gmt":"2018-10-11T05:26:52","slug":"approbation-and-reprobation-on-same-facts-not-allowed-appellant-taking-stand-under-sarfaesi-disallowed-to-change-to-transfer-of-property-act-sc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/09\/approbation-and-reprobation-on-same-facts-not-allowed-appellant-taking-stand-under-sarfaesi-disallowed-to-change-to-transfer-of-property-act-sc\/","title":{"rendered":"Approbation and reprobation on same facts not allowed; appellant taking stand under SARFAESI disallowed to change to Transfer of Property Act: SC"},"content":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court: <\/strong>A Bench comprising of CJ Ranjan Gogoi and Navin Sinha and K.M. Joseph, JJ. dismissed an appeal filed against the appellate order whereby interference in the order of Company Judge was declined.<\/p>\n

The appellant was an assignee of debt by Industrial Finance Corpn. of India Ltd. for the outstandings of Mahendra Petrochemical Ltd. Earlier, a company petition was filed for winding up of MPL. Subsequently, after assignment of debt by IFCI in its favour, the appellant filed another company appeal for substitution of its name in place of IFCI as a secured creditor. The Company Judge rejected the application holding that the appellant was neither a bank or a banking company or a financial institution or a securitisation company or a reconstruction company, and therefore could not be substituted in place of IFCI as a secured creditor for the purpose of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI). It was also held that in the nature of the relief sought under the SARFAESI Act, the appellant could not draw any benefit from Section 130 of the Transfer of Property Act. The review application filed to the Company Court under Section 9 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 was rejected. The appellant submitted that it never sought substitution as a secured creditor, but simply desired substitution as a transferee of an actionable claim under Section 130 of Transfer of Property Act.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court, after considering the submissions and perusing the record, was of the view that the submissions made before the Company Judge left no room for doubt that as an assignee of debt from IFCI, the appellant essentially sought substitution as a secured creditor under SARFAESI Act and for that purpose sought to draw sustenance from Section 130 of Transfer of Property Act. After the claim of the appellant of being a secured creditor was rejected, it realised the unsustainability of its claim and made a complete volte face<\/em> from its earlier stand contrary to its own pleadings. The contention of the appellant was belied from its own recitals before the Company Court. Referring to Amar Singh <\/em>v. Union of India<\/em>, (2011) 7 SCC 69<\/a> and Joint Action Committee for Airline Pilots\u2019 Assn. of India <\/em>v. Director General of Civil Aviation<\/em>, (2011) 5 SCC 435<\/a>, the Supreme Court held that a litigant can different stands at different times but cannot take contrary stands in the same cases. A party cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate on the same facts and take inconsistent shifting stands. [Suzuki Parasrampuria Suitings (P) Ltd. v. Official Liquidator of Mahendra Petrochemicals Ltd.,2018 SCC OnLine SC 1798<\/b><\/a>, dated 08-10-2018]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court: A Bench comprising of CJ Ranjan Gogoi and Navin Sinha and K.M. Joseph, JJ. dismissed an appeal filed against the <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"featured_media":154914,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,9],"tags":[32024,32025,3596,32026],"class_list":["post-203304","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-supremecourt","tag-approbation","tag-reprobation","tag-SARFAESI","tag-transfer-of-property-act"],"yoast_head":"\nApprobation and reprobation on same facts not allowed; appellant taking stand under SARFAESI disallowed to change to Transfer of Property Act: SC | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/09\/approbation-and-reprobation-on-same-facts-not-allowed-appellant-taking-stand-under-sarfaesi-disallowed-to-change-to-transfer-of-property-act-sc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Approbation and reprobation on same facts not allowed; appellant taking stand under SARFAESI disallowed to change to Transfer of Property Act: SC\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme Court: A Bench comprising of CJ Ranjan Gogoi and Navin Sinha and K.M. Joseph, JJ. dismissed an appeal filed against the\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/09\/approbation-and-reprobation-on-same-facts-not-allowed-appellant-taking-stand-under-sarfaesi-disallowed-to-change-to-transfer-of-property-act-sc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2018-10-09T04:30:57+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-11T05:26:52+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/09\/approbation-and-reprobation-on-same-facts-not-allowed-appellant-taking-stand-under-sarfaesi-disallowed-to-change-to-transfer-of-property-act-sc\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/09\/approbation-and-reprobation-on-same-facts-not-allowed-appellant-taking-stand-under-sarfaesi-disallowed-to-change-to-transfer-of-property-act-sc\/\",\"name\":\"Approbation and reprobation on same facts not allowed; appellant taking stand under SARFAESI disallowed to change to Transfer of Property Act: SC | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/09\/approbation-and-reprobation-on-same-facts-not-allowed-appellant-taking-stand-under-sarfaesi-disallowed-to-change-to-transfer-of-property-act-sc\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/09\/approbation-and-reprobation-on-same-facts-not-allowed-appellant-taking-stand-under-sarfaesi-disallowed-to-change-to-transfer-of-property-act-sc\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2018-10-09T04:30:57+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-11T05:26:52+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/09\/approbation-and-reprobation-on-same-facts-not-allowed-appellant-taking-stand-under-sarfaesi-disallowed-to-change-to-transfer-of-property-act-sc\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/09\/approbation-and-reprobation-on-same-facts-not-allowed-appellant-taking-stand-under-sarfaesi-disallowed-to-change-to-transfer-of-property-act-sc\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/09\/approbation-and-reprobation-on-same-facts-not-allowed-appellant-taking-stand-under-sarfaesi-disallowed-to-change-to-transfer-of-property-act-sc\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/09\/approbation-and-reprobation-on-same-facts-not-allowed-appellant-taking-stand-under-sarfaesi-disallowed-to-change-to-transfer-of-property-act-sc\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Approbation and reprobation on same facts not allowed; appellant taking stand under SARFAESI disallowed to change to Transfer of Property Act: SC\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\",\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Bhumika Indulia\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Approbation and reprobation on same facts not allowed; appellant taking stand under SARFAESI disallowed to change to Transfer of Property Act: SC | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/09\/approbation-and-reprobation-on-same-facts-not-allowed-appellant-taking-stand-under-sarfaesi-disallowed-to-change-to-transfer-of-property-act-sc\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Approbation and reprobation on same facts not allowed; appellant taking stand under SARFAESI disallowed to change to Transfer of Property Act: SC","og_description":"Supreme Court: A Bench comprising of CJ Ranjan Gogoi and Navin Sinha and K.M. Joseph, JJ. dismissed an appeal filed against the","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/09\/approbation-and-reprobation-on-same-facts-not-allowed-appellant-taking-stand-under-sarfaesi-disallowed-to-change-to-transfer-of-property-act-sc\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2018-10-09T04:30:57+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-11T05:26:52+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/09\/approbation-and-reprobation-on-same-facts-not-allowed-appellant-taking-stand-under-sarfaesi-disallowed-to-change-to-transfer-of-property-act-sc\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/09\/approbation-and-reprobation-on-same-facts-not-allowed-appellant-taking-stand-under-sarfaesi-disallowed-to-change-to-transfer-of-property-act-sc\/","name":"Approbation and reprobation on same facts not allowed; appellant taking stand under SARFAESI disallowed to change to Transfer of Property Act: SC | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/09\/approbation-and-reprobation-on-same-facts-not-allowed-appellant-taking-stand-under-sarfaesi-disallowed-to-change-to-transfer-of-property-act-sc\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/09\/approbation-and-reprobation-on-same-facts-not-allowed-appellant-taking-stand-under-sarfaesi-disallowed-to-change-to-transfer-of-property-act-sc\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg","datePublished":"2018-10-09T04:30:57+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-11T05:26:52+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/09\/approbation-and-reprobation-on-same-facts-not-allowed-appellant-taking-stand-under-sarfaesi-disallowed-to-change-to-transfer-of-property-act-sc\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/09\/approbation-and-reprobation-on-same-facts-not-allowed-appellant-taking-stand-under-sarfaesi-disallowed-to-change-to-transfer-of-property-act-sc\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/09\/approbation-and-reprobation-on-same-facts-not-allowed-appellant-taking-stand-under-sarfaesi-disallowed-to-change-to-transfer-of-property-act-sc\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg","width":1330,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/09\/approbation-and-reprobation-on-same-facts-not-allowed-appellant-taking-stand-under-sarfaesi-disallowed-to-change-to-transfer-of-property-act-sc\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Approbation and reprobation on same facts not allowed; appellant taking stand under SARFAESI disallowed to change to Transfer of Property Act: SC"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a","name":"Bhumika Indulia","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","caption":"Bhumika Indulia"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":252857,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/08\/18\/rent-act-would-not-come-to-the-aid-of-a-tenant-in-sufferance\/","url_meta":{"origin":203304,"position":0},"title":"Rent Act would not come to the aid of a \u201ctenant-\u00adin-\u00adsufferance\u201d vis-\u00ad\u00e0-\u00advis SARFAESI Act due to operation of S. 13(2) read with S. 13(13) of SARFAESI Act: SC","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"August 18, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: The Division Bench of S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari, JJ., addressed a pertinent issue of whether the rent act would come to the aid of a \u201ctenant in sufferance\u201d. Instant appeals were directed against the Orders passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Mumbai rejecting the application\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-7-1.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-7-1.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-7-1.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-7-1.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/07\/MicrosoftTeams-image-7-1.png?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":199742,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/06\/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016-prevails-over-sarfaesi-act-2002-nclat\/","url_meta":{"origin":203304,"position":1},"title":"Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 prevails over SARFAESI Act, 2002: NCLAT","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"August 6, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT): A two-member bench comprising of Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya, Chairperson and Justice Bansi Lal Bhat, Member (Judicial), dismissed an appeal filed by the Financial Creditor, holding it to be sans merit. The appeal was filed by the appellant Bank (Financial Creditor) against the order passed\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/NCLAT.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":247829,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/05\/03\/company-court-cannot-decide-in-winding-up-proceeding-which-party-defaulted-with-the-compromise-supreme-court-clarifies-jurisdiction-of-company-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":203304,"position":2},"title":"Company Court cannot decide in winding up proceeding which party defaulted with the compromise; Supreme Court clarifies jurisdiction of Company Court \u00a0","author":"Editor","date":"May 3, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: In a corporate dispute case, the 3-Judge Bench comprising of R.F. Nariman, B.R. Gavai* and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ., held that, \u201cThe company Court while exercising its powers under sections 433 and 434 of the Companies Act would not be in a position to decide, as to who was\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-2-7.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":32651,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/01\/14\/company-judge-has-no-say-in-the-sale-of-secured-assets-made-by-secured-creditors-under-the-sarfaesi-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":203304,"position":3},"title":"Company Judge has no say in the sale of secured assets made by secured creditors under the SARFAESI Act","author":"Sucheta","date":"January 14, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: While answering the common question of law involved in the present appeal that whether a Company Court directly or through an official liquidator can interfere in a sale of secured assets made by the secured creditors as per the provisions of SARFAESI Act, 2002, the Division Bench of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":247248,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/17\/interplay-of-ib-code-with-law-on-limitation-the-consistent-inconsistency-part-i\/","url_meta":{"origin":203304,"position":4},"title":"Interplay of IB Code with law on limitation \u2013 The consistent \u201cinconsistency\u201d \u2013 Part I","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"April 17, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"by Akaant Kumar Mittal\u2020","rel":"","context":"In "Akaant Mittal"","block_context":{"text":"Akaant Mittal","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/experts_corner\/individual\/akaant-mittal\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/MicrosoftTeams-image-37.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/MicrosoftTeams-image-37.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/MicrosoftTeams-image-37.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/MicrosoftTeams-image-37.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/MicrosoftTeams-image-37.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":266043,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/04\/27\/stamp-duty-split-instrucment-once-already-charged-supreme-court-judgments-legal-law-research-news-updates\/","url_meta":{"origin":203304,"position":5},"title":"Reduction in stamp duty cannot lead to revenue splitting an instrument into two once it has already been charged under a correct charging provision: Supreme Court\u00a0","author":"Prachi Bhardwaj","date":"April 27, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: While dealing with a case under the Gujarat\u00a0Stamp\u00a0Act,\u00a01958, the bench of Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian*, JJ has held that once a single instrument has been charged under a correct charging provision of the Statute, namely Article 20(a), the Revenue cannot split the instrument into two, because of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/MicrosoftTeams-image-146-2.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/MicrosoftTeams-image-146-2.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/MicrosoftTeams-image-146-2.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/MicrosoftTeams-image-146-2.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/MicrosoftTeams-image-146-2.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/203304","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8808"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=203304"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/203304\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/154914"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=203304"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=203304"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=203304"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}