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 interim order directing deposit of the outstanding amount and the refusal to grant further interim injunction called for interference in the appeals.
Analysis: The dispute arose from prior agreements by which the hotel operator had a contractual claim to repayment of the outstanding amount and from an earlier injunction requiring disclosure of that liability in any subsequent transfer. The transfer of the hotel unit in proceedings under the SARFAESI Act was found to have taken place without effective recognition of that claim. The Court held that the High Court was justified in protecting that contractual entitlement by directing deposit of the amount in court. At the same time, the further direction that an injunction would revive automatically on non-compliance with the deposit condition was considered unnecessary.
Conclusion: The deposit direction was affirmed, with the time for compliance extended, but the additional conditional injunction direction was not sustained. The separate appeal challenging refusal of interim injunction was dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: An appellate court may protect an existing contractual and court-recognised claim through an interim deposit direction where a later transfer occurs in the face of an earlier injunction, but it should not impose an unnecessary automatic injunction clause based on assumed non-compliance.