Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
Page of 4916
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 98302 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The HC dismissed the petition, upholding the Appellate Court's decision to set aside the impugned judgment. The Court determined that in an equitable mortgage, registration is not compulsory, and borrowers can sell mortgaged property without the lender's knowledge. ARCL, as SBI's assignee, failed to establish a valid equitable mortgage as they possessed only a lodgment receipt rather than the actual title deeds. Applying principles from precedent cases, the Court found that a first mortgagee who negligently allows title deeds to remain with the mortgagor (enabling subsequent fraudulent loans) can be postponed in priority to a second mortgagee. The Court concluded the appellant's negligence in securing proper documentation justified the Appellate Court's ruling.
The HC dismissed the petition, upholding the Appellate Court's decision to set aside the impugned judgment. The Court determined that in an equitable mortgage, registration is not compulsory, and borrowers can sell mortgaged property without the lender's knowledge. ARCL, as SBI's assignee, failed to establish a valid equitable mortgage as they possessed only a lodgment receipt rather than the actual title deeds. Applying principles from precedent cases, the Court found that a first mortgagee who negligently allows title deeds to remain with the mortgagor (enabling subsequent fraudulent loans) can be postponed in priority to a second mortgagee. The Court concluded the appellant's negligence in securing proper documentation justified the Appellate Court's ruling.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.