Right Of Private Defence Not Available To Aggressors Who Create Situations Of Peril: Allahabad High Court National Security Concerns Outweigh Right To Bail In Espionage Cases: Andhra Pradesh High Court Denies Relief To Navy Sailor Accused Of Spying For Pakistan Wives Are Not Deemed Maids, Marriage Is A Partnership Of Equals: Bombay High Court Rejects Household Chores As Ground For Cruelty Divorce Economic Offences Affect Financial Fabric Of Society; Custodial Interrogation May Be Necessary: Chhattisgarh HC Dismisses Anil Tuteja's Bail In Mahadev App Case Municipalities Are 'Persons' Under WB Highways Act; Can't Build On PWD Land Without Permission: Calcutta High Court Sale Of Secured Asset At Reserve Price Requires Borrower’s Consent; Authorised Officer Cannot Confirm Sale Unilaterally: Andhra Pradesh High Court Procedural Safeguards Mandatory Even In National Security Cases: Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail Over Non-Supply Of Written Grounds Of Arrest Compassionate Appointment Not A Ladder For Career Growth; Second Claim For Higher Post Not Permissible: Allahabad High Court High Court Can't Invoke Inherent Powers To Allow 'Backdoor Entry' For Second Revision Unless Gross Injustice Is Established: Delhi High Court Court Cannot Presume Unsound Mind Merely Because Of Hearing & Speech Disability; Inquiry Under Order 32 Rule 15 CPC Mandatory: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 138 NI Act: Technical Omission In Complaint Filed By POA Holder Cured If Original Complainant Testifies During Trial; Kerala High Court Direct Evidence Of Sexual Intercourse Not Always Possible; Circumstantial Evidence Of Proximity Sufficient To Prove Adultery: Madras High Court 21 Years Service Is Not Temporary: Orissa HC Directs Regularization Of Drivers, Says State Can’t Exploit Workers Through Perennial 'Ad-Hocism' Reinstatement Not Automatic For Section 25-F ID Act Violations; Punjab & Haryana HC Awards ₹1 Lakh Per Year Compensation To Superannuated Workman Section 82 CrPC Requirements Mandatory; Order Declaring Person Proclaimed Vitiated If Fresh Proclamation Not Issued Upon Adjournment: Punjab & Haryana HC Stay On Blacklisting Order Does Not Efface Underlying Fact; Bidder Must Make Candid Disclosure: Delhi High Court

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

Latest Legal News