Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the amount described as "royalty" in the mining rights assignment deed was in substance part of the consideration payable for the transfer, or was an inapplicable claim to sovereign royalty.
Analysis: The deed had to be construed on its own terms and by its substance, not by the label used for the payments. The arrangement showed that the parties used the word "royalty" loosely to denote periodic payments undertaken by the transferee in addition to the initial cash and share consideration. The document did not indicate any sovereign or State prerogative in favour of the assignor, and the registration endorsement did not establish that Rs. 30,000 was the entire consideration. On the proper construction of the deed, the stipulated payments formed part of the consideration for the assignment. Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act was applied to recognise that a sale may be for price paid, promised, or partly paid and partly promised.
Conclusion: The stipulated payments were not true royalty in the legal sense but part of the consideration payable under the assignment deed, and the claim of the appellants succeeded.
Ratio Decidendi: A contractual payment described as royalty will be treated according to its substance and the surrounding terms of the instrument, and may be enforced as part of the consideration where the deed shows a private payment obligation rather than a sovereign royalty.