Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.26 seconds)
Rahul Dilip Shah vs Catalyst Trusteeship Limited & Ors. on 6 February, 2024 cites

M/S Vistra Itcl (India) Limited vs Dinkar Venkatasubramanian on 4 May, 2023

18. It was next submitted that the reliance placed on Section 176 of the Act is misplaced and inapplicable to the circumstances of the present case since Section 176 refers to cases where the pawnor is the debtor/borrower, which is not the present case. Learned counsel drew our attention to the judgments of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court reported as Vistara ITCL (India) Ltd & Ors vs. Dinkar Venkatasubramanian & Anr. [(2023) 7 SCC 324] & PTC India Financial Services Ltd vs Venkateswarlu Kari & Anr [(2022) 9 SCC 704] and submitted the issue stands largely answered in principle by the Apex Court that in situations where the pledgor is not the borrower or guarantor, the liability of the pledgor is merely restricted to the value of the pledged shares. It was submitted that respondent no. 1 despite having invoked the pledged shares of which appellant continues to be owner, cannot claim any right in the pledged shares.
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 1 - M R Shah - Full Document

Maharashtra State Electricity ... vs Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory ... on 8 October, 2021

29. Having placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd vs. Maharashtra Electricity Regulation Commission and Ors (2022) 4 SCC 657, wherein the Apex Court observed that Courts cannot rewrite a contract mutually executed between the parties. It was submitted, the judgment states that courts cannot substitute their own view and presumed understanding of commercial terms by the parties if such terms are explicitly mentioned. The learned counsel thus submits, the „Event of Default‟ indicated when the promoter seized to be a director in the company and when the pledgor is declared a wilful defaulter by any bank. The appellant has not only been declared a „wilful defaulter‟ by Yes Bank but he also ceases to be a Director in respondent no. 3 company for having resigned. Thus, apparently „Events of Default‟ continues to subsist and rights of voting rightfully reside with respondent no. 1.
Supreme Court of India Cites 80 - Cited by 23 - I Banerjee - Full Document

Lallan Prasad vs Rahmat Ali & Anr on 13 December, 1966

5.1 This Court, in Lallan Prasad v. Rahmat Ali and Another, observes that under the common law, a pledge is a bailment of personal property as security for payment of debt or engagement. The two essential ingredients of pledge are (i) the pawn i.e., the property pledged should be actually or constructively delivered to the pawnee and (ii) a pawnee has only special property in the pledge but the general property therein remains in the pawnor and wholly reverts to him on discharge of the debt. The right to property vests in the pawnee Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed FAO(OS)(COMM.)244/2023 Page 21 of 25 By:NEELAM Signing Date:07.02.2024 12:34:30 only as far as is necessary to secure the debt. A pawn or pledge is an intermediate between a simple lien and a mortgage, which wholly passes the property. A pawnor has an absolute right to redeem the pledged property upon tendering the amount advanced but that right would be lost if the pawnee in the meantime has lawfully sold the pledged property. If the pawnee sells, he must appropriate the proceeds of the sale towards the pawnor‟s debt, for the sale proceeds are the pawnor‟s monies to be so applied and the pawnee must pay the pawnor any surplus after satisfying the debt....."
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 83 - J M Shelat - Full Document
1   2 Next