<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2024 (8) TMI 1393 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757689</link>
    <description>A mortgage by deposit of title deeds under Section 58(f) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 requires a debt, delivery of title deeds and an intention that the deeds secure that debt; where the written memorandum merely records a completed transaction, no separate registered mortgage instrument is required. On the facts stated, the admission of execution and the surrounding conduct supported a valid equitable mortgage, so a mortgage decree was warranted. The separate challenge to refusal of restoration was also said to fail, as the objection based on counsel&#039;s authority did not disclose legal infirmity. The text notes that the impugned orders were set aside only to the extent necessary to restore the trial court decree, with interest reduced.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Aug 2024 18:45:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=765966" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (8) TMI 1393 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757689</link>
      <description>A mortgage by deposit of title deeds under Section 58(f) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 requires a debt, delivery of title deeds and an intention that the deeds secure that debt; where the written memorandum merely records a completed transaction, no separate registered mortgage instrument is required. On the facts stated, the admission of execution and the surrounding conduct supported a valid equitable mortgage, so a mortgage decree was warranted. The separate challenge to refusal of restoration was also said to fail, as the objection based on counsel&#039;s authority did not disclose legal infirmity. The text notes that the impugned orders were set aside only to the extent necessary to restore the trial court decree, with interest reduced.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=757689</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>