https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313412 A memorandum merely recording an equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds was not a compulsorily registrable instrument because the mortgage had already been completed by the deposit itself; registration is required only where the written document is the contract creating the charge and the sole evidence of the transaction. The Delhi HC therefore rejected the objection based on non-registration. It also held that later security furnished after default was supported by valid consideration, since forbearance to sue is sufficient consideration under contract law. The challenge to the interim orders failed, and the respondent's rights under the security were upheld for interlocutory purposes. en-us Tue, 07 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 12 Apr 2024 10:35:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313412 A memorandum merely recording an equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds was not a compulsorily registrable instrument because the mortgage had already been completed by the deposit itself; registration is required only where the written document is the contract creating the charge and the sole evidence of the transaction. The Delhi HC therefore rejected the objection based on non-registration. It also held that later security furnished after default was supported by valid consideration, since forbearance to sue is sufficient consideration under contract law. The challenge to the interim orders failed, and the respondent's rights under the security were upheld for interlocutory purposes. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 07 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313412