Category: Transfer Of Property Act

Transfer of Property Act, 1882- Sections 41 and 52 – Sale deed executed during the pendency of a suit for permanent injunction is invalid under the principle of lis pendens – The court held that the doctrine of lis pendens applies to maintain status quo and prevent multiple proceedings by parties in different forums – The court further clarified that even if Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act is not applicable in its strict sense, the principles of lis pendens, which are based on justice, equity, and good conscience, would certainly be applicable – The court set aside the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and directed the defendant to accept the balance sale consideration and execute the agreement to sell in favor of the plaintiff within three months from the date of the judgment.

2024 INSC 377 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CHANDER BHAN (D) THROUGH LR SHER SINGH — Appellant Vs. MUKHTIAR SINGH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia…

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 106 – Declaration of title – Permanent injunction – Quit notice – Validity of – Tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, 1921 – After purchase of second schedule property from original owner, defendant rightly issued quit notice under Section 106 of Act 1882 to plaintiff

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH MOHIDEEN ABDUL KHADAR (DEAD)THROUGH LRS. — Appellant Vs. RAHMATH BEEVI (D) THR. HER LRS. AND OTHER — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and…

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Actionable claim – In terms of Section 3 of the TPA, actionable claim means (a) claim to an unsecured debt (other than a debt secured by mortgage of immovable property, hypothecation or pledge (b) beneficial interest in a movable property – Both these are recognised as enforceable – Other claims, however, do not fall within the expression “actionable claim”.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH INFRASTRUCTURE LEASING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. — Appellant Vs. HDFC BANK LTD. AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Dipankar…

Considering the principles laid down in sub-section (4)(b) of Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act Act, the seller will have a charge over the property subject matter of the sale for unpaid consideration and he can enforce the charge by filing a suit.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before: Abhay S. Oka & Rajesh Bindal, JJ. Civil Appeal No.10412 of 2013 Decided on: 31.07.2023 Yogendra Prasad Singh (Dead) through LRs – Appellants Versus Ram…

Practice of ‘ta khubzul badlain’ in Bihar recognises that a duly executed sale deed will not operate as a transfer in praesenti but postpones the actual transfer of title, from the time of execution and registration of the deed, to the time of exchange of equivalents, that is, registration receipt and the sale consideration, if the intention of the parties was that title would pass only on payment of entire sale consideration

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH YOGENDRA PRASAD SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS — Appellant Vs. RAM BACHAN DEVI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh…

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 53A – the prospective purchaser having performed his part of the contract and lawfully in possession acquires possessory title which is liable to be protected in view of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GHANSHYAM — Appellant Vs. YOGENDRA RATHI — Respondent ( Before : Dipankar Datta and Pankaj Mithal, JJ. ) Civil Appeal Nos.7527-7528 of 2012 Decided…

You missed

Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission (Distribution Licence) Regulations, 2013 – Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 – Sections 3 and 4 – Electricity Act – Section 14(b) – Whether a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) developer, deemed to be a distribution licensee under the Electricity Act, is required to make an application for a distribution license and comply with the conditions set out in the Electricity Rules and Regulations. – The appeal challenges the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity’s decision to require an appellant to infuse additional capital as a condition for being identified as a deemed distribution licensee – The court questioned whether a SEZ developer is ipso facto a deemed distribution licensee, obviating the need for an application under section 14 of the Electricity Act – The appellant argued that they are automatically a deemed distribution licensee by virtue of the 2010 Notification and that the conditions imposed by TSERC were in excess of jurisdiction – The respondents argued that the appellant must comply with the 2005 and 2013 Regulations and that TSERC is empowered to impose conditions to assess credit-worthiness – The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the condition of additional capital infusion imposed by TSERC – The court reasoned that the appellant must apply to be recognized as a deemed licensee but is not subject to the additional capital requirements of regulation 12 and rule 3(2) – The court concluded that the appellant is required to make an application as per the 2013 Regulations, and the condition to infuse additional capital is not justified.