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 a suit for redemption of pledged shares of a limited company is to be valued as a suit for ordinary movable property or as a suit for possession of documents of title, and whether the transaction was a pledge or a mortgage of movables.
Analysis: A pledge under the Indian Contract Act involves bailment of goods as security, whereas a mortgage of movables involves a transfer of property in the goods by way of security. The transaction in question was held to be a pledge and not a mortgage of movables. The shares of a limited company were treated as documents of title within the meaning of the court-fees provision, so the specific valuation rule for possession of documents of title applied rather than the general rule for ordinary movable property or the provision dealing with redemption of mortgages.
Conclusion: The suit was held to fall under the provision governing possession of documents of title, and court-fee was payable on the higher valuation contemplated by that provision, in favour of the petitioners.
Final Conclusion: The revision was allowed and the matter was remitted to the lower court to reassess court-fee on the first relief in accordance with the correct valuation rule.
Ratio Decidendi: A suit for redemption of pledged shares of a company is governed by the court-fees provision applicable to possession of documents of title where the shares constitute such documents, and not by the provision applicable to redemption of a mortgage.