TaxTMI Login
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%
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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether a deed of pledge over dematerialised shares could validly confer voting and other limited ownership-like rights on the pledgee beyond the core rights in Section 176 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872; (ii) Whether the transfer of the pledged shares from the original pledgee to the assignee under the SARFAESI regime was lawful and effective; (iii) Whether the pledge transactions were vitiated by fraud so as to render them void ab initio or otherwise unenforceable.
Issue (i): Whether a deed of pledge over dematerialised shares could validly confer voting and other limited ownership-like rights on the pledgee beyond the core rights in Section 176 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
Analysis: Section 176 was treated as mandatory as to the minimum incidents of a pledge, but not as exhausting the field of contractual stipulation. The law of pledge was held to be a form of bailment and to permit additional contractual incidents so long as they do not conflict with mandatory statutory requirements. The Court distinguished authorities dealing with a plain-vanilla pledge and held that none of them prohibited contractual conferment of voting rights on a pledgee. The Depositories Act and the depository regulations were read harmoniously with the Contract Act, and the registration of the pledgee as beneficial owner was regarded as a step enabling enforcement and transfer in the dematerialised regime.
Conclusion: The pledge deeds could validly confer voting rights and related powers on the pledgee, and this did not invalidate the pledge or convert it into a mortgage.
Issue (ii): Whether the transfer of the pledged shares from the original pledgee to the assignee under the SARFAESI regime was lawful and effective.
Analysis: The Court held that the assignment of the stressed asset portfolio under Section 5 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 carried with it the underlying security interests and enforceability of the pledge documents. The definition of financial asset and the deeming effect of Section 5(2) and Section 5(3) were treated as sufficient to recognise the assignee as standing in the shoes of the bank in relation to the pledged shares. The argument based on Section 31(b) was rejected as reading that exclusion so broadly would make the acquisition provisions ineffective for pledged assets. The transfer was also found to be consistent with the contractual terms authorising transfer to successors, assigns and transferees.
Conclusion: The transfer and assignment in favour of the assignee were held to be lawful and effective, and the assignee was entitled to enforce the security as pledgee.
Issue (iii): Whether the pledge transactions were vitiated by fraud so as to render them void ab initio or otherwise unenforceable.
Analysis: The alleged fraud was treated, at the highest, as a case of fraudulent inducement or misrepresentation as to the contents or surrounding commercial purpose of the transactions, not fraud as to the character of the documents. Such fraud would make the transaction voidable, not void, and would require avoidance by the defrauded party. The Plaintiff was found to have had prior knowledge of the alleged facts yet continued to affirm the pledge arrangements. The materials relied upon from criminal complaints and investigative correspondence were held not to establish a prima facie case of fraud sufficient to displace the contractual and statutory rights of the pledgee and assignee. Restitutionary consequences under Sections 64 and 65 would in any event arise if the transaction were avoided.
Conclusion: No prima facie case of fraud sufficient to invalidate the pledge deeds or the assignee's rights was made out.
Final Conclusion: The interim reliefs sought to restrain voting, transfer and participation in management on the basis of the pledged shares were refused, as the contractual and statutory rights of the pledgee and assignee were upheld and the fraud challenge failed at the interlocutory stage.
Ratio Decidendi: A pledge of dematerialised shares may, consistently with Section 176 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and the depository framework, include additional contractual incidents such as voting rights and transfer to successors or assignees, provided mandatory statutory requirements are not violated; allegations of fraud that amount only to voidability do not unsettle such rights unless the transaction is duly avoided.
TaxTMI 
