https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197356 A Bombay HC decision on pledged shares held that the 1941 contract transferred only the bank's existing pledgee interest and remained subject to the pending litigation, not an absolute unencumbered title. The Court also rejected res judicata because the earlier suit had not directly and substantially decided the specific sale issue against the Official Assignee, who had been only formally impleaded and against whom no relief was sought. On sale of pledged property, Section 176 of the Indian Contract Act was treated as requiring reasonable notice; absent proof of such notice and of a lawful concluded sale, the bank's purported sale did not extinguish the right of redemption, and the Official Assignee was entitled to redeem the shares. en-us Wed, 21 Aug 1946 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 04 Jan 2018 09:45:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197356 A Bombay HC decision on pledged shares held that the 1941 contract transferred only the bank's existing pledgee interest and remained subject to the pending litigation, not an absolute unencumbered title. The Court also rejected res judicata because the earlier suit had not directly and substantially decided the specific sale issue against the Official Assignee, who had been only formally impleaded and against whom no relief was sought. On sale of pledged property, Section 176 of the Indian Contract Act was treated as requiring reasonable notice; absent proof of such notice and of a lawful concluded sale, the bank's purported sale did not extinguish the right of redemption, and the Official Assignee was entitled to redeem the shares. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 21 Aug 1946 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197356