MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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