Difference between Direct Attack & Collateral Attack
|

Difference between Direct Attack & Collateral Attack

In Navaneethammal vs. Ammakannammal and Ors.[1], the plaint included a claim which was prima facie untenable. However, such untenability of the claim was discovered only after the decision of the Federal Court. It is evident that the untenability of a claim is undoubtedly a reason for disallowing the same. However, if the Court happens to…

Difference between ‘Mortgage by Conditional Sale’ and ‘Sale with a condition of Re-transfer’

Difference between ‘Mortgage by Conditional Sale’ and ‘Sale with a condition of Re-transfer’

Mortgage by Conditional Sale: What it means Section 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 provides- (c) Mortgage by conditional sale.– Where, the mortgagor ostensibly sells the mortgaged property – on condition that on default of payment of the mortgage-money on a certain date the sale shall become absolute, or on condition that on…

Admissibility of Unregistered Document
|

Admissibility of Unregistered Document

Importance of Registration Registration of a document gives publicity and public exposure to documents thereby preventing forgeries and frauds in regard to transactions and execution of documents. It gives solemnity of form and perpetuates documents which are of legal importance or relevance by recording them, where people may see the record and enquire and ascertain…

DIT v. Copal Research Mauritius Limited, Moody’s Analytics, USA & Ors.

FACTS Copal Partners Ltd., Jersey (“CPL Jersey“), held 100% shares in Copal Research Ltd., Mauritius (“CRL Mauritius“). CRL Mauritius, in turn, held 100% of the shares in both, Copal Research India Pvt. Ltd., India (“CRIPL India“) and Copal Market Research Ltd., Mauritius (“CMRL Mauritius“). CMRL Mauritius, in turn, held 100% of the shares in Exevo…

|

Rules for Interpretation of Contracts: Implied Terms of Contract

Conditions for using ‘Implied Terms’ for Interpretation  Lord Simon in BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd vs. The Shire of Hastings [1978] 52 AJLR 20 held that- “…for a term to be implied, the following conditions (which may overlap) must be satisfied: it must be reasonable and equitable; it must be necessary to give business efficacy to the…

|

Rules for Interpretation of Contracts: Pre-Contractual Documents/Draft Agreements

Antecedent Agreements A concluded antecedent agreement may be relied upon in interpreting a later contract in pursuance of that agreement.  However, an antecedent agreement may be considered only on the basis of its particular facts and circumstances. Pre-Contractual Documents/Draft Agreements A concluded contract may be preceded by multiple drafts. Draft agreements may even be signed. Draft…

In Re: Mohan Exports India Ltd. vs. Tarun Overseas Pvt. Ltd.

In case the proposed scheme is bona fide and genuine and is not against public interest then mere fact that certain immovable properties or right to recover debts etc. are transferred to the transferee company would not mean that they are in violation of any provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. However, if such scheme is only with the ulterior motive to transfer the immovable properties without payment of Government or statutory dues, then the same would be against the public interest and the Court will not approve the scheme.

IN RE Tecumseh Products India Private Ltd.

CITATION: 82 (1999) DLT 518 DECIDED on: 13.08.1999 FACTS In this case a Company Petition was filed by M/s. Tecumseh India Private Limited (“Transferee Company”) seeking amalgamation of M/s. Tecumseh Products India Limited (“Transferor Company”) with the Transferee Company. Both the Transferor and Transferee Company belonged to same group. The scheme of amalgamation provided that all…

In Re: Indusind Bank Ltd.

CITATION: (2004) 4 CompLJ 394 Bom DECIDED: May 6, 2004 BEFORE: Bombay High Court FACTS A company petition was filed by the petitioner IndusInd Bank Limited for sanction of Scheme of Arrangement between Ashok Leyland Finance Limited (‘transferor company’) and IndusInd Bank Limited (‘transferee company’) and their respective members and creditors. The Regional Director’s main objection was that…

Miheer H. Mafatlal Vs. Mafatlal Industries Ltd.

The scope of Company Court to sanction scheme of amalgamation is limited and therefore Court can intervene in matter only when it is not just and fair or prejudicial to the interest of share holders. Court can only go through scheme and examine whether it has complied requirements under Section 391 (2) and was passed requisite majority or not. Individual personal interest of minority share holders is of no concern unless it is affecting class interest of such equity shareholders.