HC affirmed plaintiff's status as exclusive first charge holder...

HC affirmed plaintiff's status as exclusive first charge holder over two properties, declaring subsequent mortgages voidable. The court found that defendant nos. 2 and 3 created impugned mortgages without obtaining mandatory NOC from plaintiff, violating clause 13(d) of the original mortgage agreement which prohibited further encumbrances without written approval. Section 48 of TPA was inapplicable as it presupposes valid subsequent transfers. Following Bikram Chatterjee and Deccan Paper Mills precedents, the court held that mortgages created contrary to terms of prior mortgage are invalid, and allowing defendants to assert rights under such impugned mortgages would "put a premium on dishonesty." Interim application allowed.