Esheria India Case Law
Sign in
India Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

India Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
0 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter India case law

Results update automatically as you type.

India decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Constitutional law

NATIONAL SPOT EXCHANGE LIMITED versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

The Court held that secured creditors cannot claim priority over properties attached under the MPID Act; monies/deposits of investors attached under MPID are not 'debt' within SARFAESI s.26E and therefore s.26E does not apply to MPID attachments; MPID is a valid State enactment within List II and is not overridden by SARFAESI or RDB merely because they are central laws; properties attached under MPID prior to commencement of moratorium under IBC s.14 vest in the Competent Authority and remain available for execution of decrees by the Supreme Court Committee despite s.14 IBC; accordingly the S…

Source excerpt

  • Article 142 scope
  • Article 246 distribution of legislative powers
  • Article 254 repugnancy
  • Priority of secured creditors (sarfaesi s.26e; rdb act)
  • Attachment under mpid act s.4
  • Moratorium under ibc s.14
Read case analysis
Property law

THE COSMOS CO. OPERATIVE BANK LTD. versus CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA & ORS.

The Supreme Court held that equitable mortgages are recognised in India as a 'charge' under Section 100 TPA but remain rights in personam and are enforceable only subject to statutory limits (including notice and priority rules); where the appellant bank possessed the actual title document (share certificate) at the time of its advance, it created a legal mortgage under Section 58 and thereby held the first valid charge in priority to respondent No.1's prior equitable mortgage which had not been brought to the appellant's notice; accordingly the High Court order was set aside and the appeal a…

Source excerpt

  • Equitable mortgage
  • Charge under section 100, transfer of property act, 1882
  • Mortgage by deposit of title deeds (section 58(f))
  • Priority of charges
  • Registration and notice
Read case analysis
Contempt of court

CELIR LLP versus MR. SUMATI PRASAD BAFNA & ORS.

This Court held that (a) the 9th auction and the sale confirmed in favour of the petitioner were lawful and the sale certificate dated 27.09.2023 conferred absolute title; (b) the Assignment Agreement dated 28.08.2023 executed during pendency of petitioner’s Special Leave Petition/Civil Appeal was hit by lis pendens and is void; (c) respondents’ acts in attempting to frustrate implementation amounted to contumacious conduct though, in view of subsequent withdrawals/undertakings, the Court declined to convict them of contempt at this stage and instead issued restitutive and compulsory directio…

Source excerpt

  • Wilful disobedience
  • Lis pendens
  • Constructive res judicata (henderson principle)
  • Sale by auction under sarfaesi
  • Sale certificate
  • Doctrine of election
Read case analysis
Consumer law

RAJESH MONGA versus HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED & ORS.

The appellant had opted for an 'Adjustable' rate and executed a loan agreement that expressly defined Adjustable Interest Rate as the rate announced by HDFC as its retail prime lending rate (RPLR) and permitted HDFC to vary that rate; as a corporate lender HDFC is governed by its policies and procedures and the terms of the signed agreement bind the parties, so the prior email representations did not override the contractual definition and the NCDRC correctly dismissed the complaint after noting repayment under agreed terms.

Source excerpt

  • Adjustable rate of interest
  • Home loan
  • Unfair trade practice
  • Policy decisions of financial institutions
  • Pre-contractual representations vs contract terms
Read case analysis
Criminal procedure

DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT versus NIRAJ TYAGI & ORS

The High Court’s interim orders staying investigations and restraining the investigating agencies and coercive action were contrary to settled law; Section 482 CrPC must be exercised sparingly and ordinarily courts should permit investigation to proceed. Accordingly the impugned interim orders were set aside and vacated; the High Court erred in granting blanket protection against arrest without anticipatory bail and without satisfying the exceptional- case parameters laid down by this Court.

Source excerpt

  • Quashing of fir
  • Staying investigations
  • Section 482 crpc
  • No coercive steps / restraint on arrest
  • Anticipatory bail
  • Judicial comity and discipline
Read case analysis
Property law

INFRASTRUCTURE LEASING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD versus HDFC BANK LTD. & ANR.

Reading all contemporaneous documents together, the court found the parties intended an absolute assignment of receivables (lease rentals) to HDFC (an LRD arrangement) rather than merely creation of a security/pledge; rents payable by tenants are actionable claims under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and capable of transfer; therefore the assigned receivables vested in HDFC and were outside the scope of the NCLAT asset and security freeze order; the NCLAT's conclusions were upheld.

Source excerpt

  • Assignment of receivables
  • Actionable claim
  • Escrow agreement
  • Lease rental discounting
  • Security interest vs assignment
  • Interpretation of deeds
Read case analysis
Banking and finance

UNION BANK OF INDIA versus RAJAT INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. & ORS. AND M/S. SUNVIEW ASSETS PVT. LTD.

The Miscellaneous Application was dismissed because the applicant failed to comply with the time limits and conditions laid down by Rule 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and no further extension beyond the statutory limits was permissible; the Court cannot, under Article 142 or Section 148 CPC, override or ignore substantive statutory provisions to grant the relief sought; and a miscellaneous application seeking substantive relief in a disposed civil appeal is not maintainable.

Source excerpt

  • Enforcement under sarfaesi act
  • Security interest (enforcement) rules, 2002 r.9 (time for payment, sale certificate)
  • Extension of time and limits of article 142
  • E-auction sale procedure
  • Maintainability of post-judgment miscellaneous applications
Read case analysis
Criminal law

M/S. JERMYN CAPITAL LLC DUBAI versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ORS.

The Supreme Court allowed the modification application and held that the earlier order dated 09.05.2023 would be modified to permit the appellant to unconditionally withdraw the sum of Rs.38.52 crore along with the fixed deposit interest accrued thereon, thereby setting aside the condition to furnish a bank guarantee and the previous direction of 4% simple interest.

Source excerpt

  • Modification of order
  • Bank guarantee
  • Fixed deposit interest
  • Withdrawal of sale proceeds
Read case analysis
Banking and finance

G. VIKRAM KUMAR versus STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD & ORS.

The High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 challenging an e-auction notice issued under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act because an alternative statutory remedy under Section 17 to the DRT was available; moreover the agreement to sell in favour of respondent no.1 was held void by the DRT as entered into during the pendency of proceedings without permission, so respondent no.1 could not obtain relief in writ jurisdiction. The High Court order was quashed and set aside and the auction purchaser (appellant) was directed to be issued a sale certificate upon full pay…

Source excerpt

  • Enforcement of security interest
  • Sarfaesi act section 13(4) and section 13(8)
  • Appeal under section 17 sarfaesi act to drt
  • Writ jurisdiction under article 226
  • E-auction procedures
  • Validity of agreement to sale during attachment
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

M/S SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. & ORS. versus NAVEEN MATHEW PHILIP & ANR. ETC. ETC.

Having regard to the fair stand of the Appellants, this Court declined to disturb the relief granted by the High Court in the individual matters, but reiterated the settled position of law that High Courts should ordinarily not entertain writ petitions under Article 226 in commercial recovery matters where the SARFAESI Act and the DRT/DRAT regime provide an effective statutory remedy; certiorari lies where process does not conform to law and mandamus requires a legal right.

Source excerpt

  • Article 226
  • Securitization and reconstruction of financial assets and enforcement of security interest act, 2002
  • Writ of certiorari
  • Writ of mandamus
  • Alternative remedy
  • Debt recovery tribunal
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

India decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.