Skip to main content

Purchaser of litigated property cannot stop claim of decree holder - P&H High Court

Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a case relating to restriction and objection of property of a transferee pendente lite, the Court ruled that Order 21, Rule 102 of Civil Procedure Code is not applicable in such cases. Placing reliance on Usha Sinha v. Dina Ram (2008) 7 SCC144 where the Supreme Court held that a third party purchasing property from a party to the suit which is the subject matter of litigation, cannot restrict the rightful claim of the decree holder.

The Court discussed Order 21 of C.P.C Rule Nos. 97, 98 and 102, wherein it is laid down that in case the decree holder’s possession is being restricted then an application can be filed in the Court upon which the Court shall adjudicate. Rule 102 specifically excludes transferee pendente lite from seeking any relief under Rule Nos. 97 and 98. The Court observed the language of Order 21 Rule 98 and 102 C.P.C., and said that any alienation recorded during the pendency of the suit would not in any way place any fetter upon the rights of a decree holder to seek possession of the suit property which has been alienated ostensibly to defeat the rights of the decree holder. As per the Court, the pendency of the suit is a Constructive Notice to the third party transferee. Rule 102 recognizes the doctrine of lis pendens as enshrined in S. 52 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 to protect the decree holder. Thus the decree holder invoking Rule 102 has to show that that the person resisting the possession or offering obstruction is claiming his title to the property after the institution of the suit in which decree was passed and sought to be executed against the judgment debtor. [Harjit Kaur v. Vinod Kumar, Civil Revision No. 4622 of 2013, decided on March 4, 2014.]

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Vanishing promoters and languishing shareholders

Over Rs 60,000 crore of shareholders’ wealth is stuck in 1,450 companies suspended by the stock exchanges. More importantly, near 100 per cent pledging of promoter holding appears to be common in many of these companies. This, almost rules out any chance of the companies bouncing back. The suspension is for non-compliance of the listing norms. Vanishing Companies - Definition As per the definition stipulated by SEBI, any listed company, which raised moneythrough initial public offer and, thereafter, stopped operations, did not file returnseither with the RoC or SEBI and did not exist on the registered premises wastermed as vanishing.There are provisions under Companies Act under which companies are termedvanishing companies on satisfying certain conditions. it is provided a companywould be deemed to be a vanishing company, if it satisfies all the conditions given below : a) Failed to file returns with Registrar of Companies (ROC) for a period of two years; b) Failed to fil
3 comments
Read more