TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the appellant bank had proved a loss sufficient to sustain its claim to retain the securities delivered by the notified party; (ii) whether bonus shares, dividend and interest accrued on the pledged shares formed part of the pledged security; (iii) whether the Cantriple Units were liable to be handed over to the Custodian; (iv) whether the award of costs against the notified party called for interference.
Issue (i): Whether the appellant bank had proved a loss sufficient to sustain its claim to retain the securities delivered by the notified party.
Analysis: The Court accepted that the bank was not required to establish the entire loss claimed in the plaint, but had to prove by evidence that it had parted with funds or securities exceeding the value of the pledged assets. On the evidence, the Court affirmed the finding that loss to the extent of Rs. 280.80 crores stood proved, while the larger claim was not established.
Conclusion: The bank proved loss to the extent of Rs. 280.80 crores, which was sufficient to support retention of the pledged securities.
Issue (ii): Whether bonus shares, dividend and interest accrued on the pledged shares formed part of the pledged security.
Analysis: The Court held that a pledge under the Contract Act carries with it the incidents of bailment and the pawnee's right to retain and, if necessary, sell the pledged goods. Applying the principle that accretions follow the principal security, and relying on the treatment of attached shares under the Special Court Act, the Court held that bonus shares, dividend and interest were not separate from the pledged property but were accretions forming part of the security.
Conclusion: Bonus shares, dividend and interest accrued on the pledged shares formed part of the pledged security and could be retained and dealt with along with the pledged shares.
Issue (iii): Whether the Cantriple Units were liable to be handed over to the Custodian.
Analysis: The Court found that the appellant bank had taken inconsistent stands regarding the Cantriple Units and had not satisfactorily proved that the transaction value had been paid or that the units were validly pledged. In the circumstances, the Special Court was justified in treating the units as attached property for the purposes of interim custody, while leaving rival claims open in the pending proceedings.
Conclusion: The Cantriple Units were liable to be handed over to the Custodian, subject to the outcome of the pending related proceedings.
Issue (iv): Whether the award of costs against the notified party called for interference.
Analysis: The Court held that the notified party had contested the claim by alleging coercion and forced extraction of securities, thereby compelling the bank to adduce extensive evidence. In view of the proved claim and the conduct of the litigation, the quantified costs were not shown to be excessive or unjustified.
Conclusion: The award of costs against the notified party was upheld.
Final Conclusion: The appellant bank succeeded on the principal questions relating to the extent of proved loss and the incidents of the pledge, while the challenge to the direction regarding the Cantriple Units failed. The notified party's appeal was dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: A pledge of securities includes their natural accretions, and the pawnee may retain and deal with such accretions as part of the pledged security unless and until redemption occurs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
