"Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Reasonable Doubt Arising from Sole Testimony in Absence of Corroboration, Power Cut Compounded Identification Difficulties: Supreme Court Acquits Appellants in Murder Case    |     ED Can Investigate Without FIRs: PH High Court Affirms PMLA’s Broad Powers    |     Accident Claim | Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Vicariously Attributed to Passengers: Supreme Court    |     Default Bail | Indefeasible Right to Bail Prevails: Allahabad High Court Faults Special Judge for Delayed Extension of Investigation    |     “Habitual Offenders Cannot Satisfy Bail Conditions Under NDPS Act”: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to Accused with Extensive Criminal Record    |     Delhi High Court Denies Substitution for Son Due to 'Gross Unexplained Delay' of Over Six Years in Trademark Suit    |     Section 4B of the Tenancy Act Cannot Override Land Exemptions for Public Development: Bombay High Court    |     Suspicion, However High, Is Not a Substitute for Proof: Calcutta High Court Orders Reinstatement of Coast Guard Officer Dismissed on Suspicion of Forgery    |     Age Not Conclusively Proven, Prosecutrix Found to be a Consenting Party: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Accused in POCSO Case    |     'Company's Absence in Prosecution Renders Case Void': Himachal High Court Quashes Complaint Against Pharma Directors    |     Preventive Detention Cannot Sacrifice Personal Liberty on Mere Allegations: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention of Local Journalist    |     J.J. Act | Accused's Age at Offense Critical - Juvenility Must Be Addressed: Kerala High Court Directs Special Court to Reframe Charges in POCSO Case    |     Foreign Laws Must Be Proved Like Facts: Delhi HC Grants Bail in Cryptocurrency Money Laundering Case    |    

Amalgamation Under Company Court Order Amounts to ‘Transfer’ Under Lease Clauses: Supreme Court Upholds DDA’s Demand for Unearned Increase

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court has held that the amalgamation of companies, sanctioned under a Company Court order, constitutes a ‘transfer’ within the terms of perpetual lease agreements, thus obligating the payment of an unearned increase in value to the lessor.

Facts and Issues: M/s. Jaiprakash Associates Ltd., originally M/s. Jaiprakash Associates Pvt Ltd, amalgamated with M/s. Jaypee Rewa Cement Ltd, transferring several perpetual lease plots to the newly formed entity. The Delhi Development Authority (DDA), acting as lessor, demanded payment for the unearned increase in value of these plots, asserting that the amalgamation amounted to a transfer as per the lease deeds. The appellant contested this, leading to the present appeal.

Lease Deeds’ Interpretation: Clause II(4)(a) of the lease deeds expressly prohibits the lessee from transferring the lease plots without the lessor’s prior written consent. The Court found this clause applicable, stating that it “covers all categories of transfers” and does not exempt involuntary transfers.

Scope of Transfer Under Lease Deeds vs. TPA: The Court opined that the transfer defined in the lease clauses is broader than that under Section 5 of the Transfer of Property Act (TPA). It includes parting with possession, thereby encompassing the transfer occurring due to amalgamation.

Precedent and Policy Reference: The judgment referred to similar past decisions like Nalwa Sons Investment Ltd. And Indian Shaving Products Limited, aligning with the principle that transfers due to corporate restructuring, like amalgamation or demerger, attract clauses of lease deeds regarding unearned increase payments.

Scheme of Amalgamation – Legal Effect: The Court noted that the scheme of amalgamation led to a transfer of properties from the transferor to the transferee company. This transfer, sanctioned by the Company Court, brought the situation squarely within the ambit of clause II(4)(a) of the lease deeds.

Decision: The appeal was dismissed. The Court upheld the DDA’s demand for the unearned increase, confirming that the amalgamation constituted a ‘transfer’ under the perpetual lease agreement. The appellant is required to comply with the interim order regarding the payment of the specified amount.

Date of Decision: 5th April 2024

M/s. Jaiprakash Industries Ltd. (Presently known as M/s. Jaiprakash Associates Ltd.) versus Delhi Development Authority

Similar News