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 applicants, as subsequent purchasers, could displace the plaintiff's prior registered mortgage and company charge over the property, and whether the chamber summons deserved to be allowed.
Analysis: The mortgage created in favour of the plaintiff was validly registered, and its registration under the Companies Act also gave statutory notice of the charge to persons acquiring the property. Even if the applicants lacked actual notice, the combined effect of the registered mortgage and the registered charge meant that the transfer by the company and the downstream transfer to the applicants could convey no title beyond the equity of redemption. The applicants were not bona fide purchasers without notice, and the pendency of the suit did not invalidate the plaintiff's security interest. The applicants' challenge to the receiver's possession and the proposed sale therefore could not override the plaintiff's prior rights.
Conclusion: The chamber summons was not maintainable on merits and the applicants were held bound by the plaintiff's prior mortgage and charge; they acquired, at best, only the equity of redemption.
Ratio Decidendi: A duly registered mortgage and registered company charge bind subsequent purchasers, who are deemed to have notice and can acquire no interest superior to the mortgagor's equity of redemption.