Trial Courts Must Award Just Compensation In POCSO Cases Beyond Fine Amounts; Interim Payment No Reason To Deny Final Relief: Madras High Court Section 482 CrPC Power Not For Conducting 'Mini-Trial'; Disputed Facts Must Be Adjudicated At Trial: Allahabad High Court Right To Walk On Demarcated Footpaths Is A Fundamental Right; Municipal Authorities Under Enforceable Duty To Provide Pedestrian Infrastructure: Supreme Court Right To Walk Is A Fundamental Right Under Articles 19(1)(d) & 21; Priority Over Motorised Vehicles: Supreme Court Municipal Commissioner Is Disciplinary Authority For All Employees Post-1993 Amendment; Existing Regulations Can't Fetter Statutory Power: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Force Plaintiff To Accept Monetary Compensation Instead Of Removal Of Encroachment Without Prayer: Supreme Court Recruitment Merit Is Not A Vested Right; Public Interest Justifies Disclosing Marks Of Candidates Outside Selection Zone: Supreme Court Special Police Establishment Not An 'Intelligence & Security Organisation', State Cannot Exempt It From RTI Act: Supreme Court Medical Practitioner Not Negligent Merely Because Result Was A Failure If Procedure Adopted Was Acceptable To Medical Science: Calcutta High Court Long Service Cannot Be Denied Regularization On Mere Technicalities If Appointment Wasn't Illegal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejection Of Nomination Paper Can Only Be Challenged Through Election Petition; Article 329(b) Bars Writ Jurisdiction: Supreme Court NI Act | Benefit Of Presumptions Under Sections 118 & 139 Not Available If Complainant Lacks Direct Knowledge Of Transaction: Kerala High Court Landowners Entitled To Solatium Under National Highways Act; Failure To Grant Is Ground To Challenge Award Under Section 34: MP High Court Transfer Policy Only Broad Guideline, Not Enforceable Under Article 226/227 In Absence Of Mala Fides: Rajasthan High Court

Property In Shares Does Not Pass Until Payment Is Made: Delhi HC Grants Interim Injunction In Share Transfer Dispute

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling on the transfer of equity shares under dispute, the Delhi High Court has granted an interim injunction favoring the plaintiff in a case involving alleged non-payment of consideration for share transfer. Justice Prateek Jalan observed, “Property in shares does not pass until payment is made,” underscoring the centrality of payment in the transfer of title.

The suit, filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, centers on a dispute where the plaintiff sought a declaration that a Letter Agreement dated December 3, 2018, for the sale of 1,611 equity shares was void due to non-payment. Additionally, the plaintiff sought to restrain the defendants from transferring or creating any third-party rights over the disputed shares.

The plaintiff alleged that despite transferring the shares to defendant No. 1 under the said agreement, the agreed consideration was never received, thus nullifying the transfer of ownership as per the agreement. The plaintiff also submitted that the share transfer form [Form SH-4] executed was contingent on the receipt of payment, which did not occur.

Defendant No. 1 contested the claim, suggesting that the consideration had been settled through alternative means, including use of property and cash, which were not directly traceable to the share purchase. They argued that these transactions formed part of a broader commercial relationship between the parties.

The court scrutinized various legal points concerning the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. Key issues addressed included whether property in the disputed shares passed to defendant No. 1 without payment and whether the payment terms were intended to be of the essence in the contract.

Justice Jalan highlighted clauses from the Sale of Goods Act which state that property does not pass until conditions under the contract are fulfilled, notably the payment of consideration. The court noted inconsistencies in defendant No. 1’s statements regarding the payment, undermining their credibility and lending weight to the plaintiff’s claim of non-payment.

Decision The court granted an interim injunction against defendant No. 1, preventing any transfer or creation of third-party rights in the disputed shares pending the final resolution of the case. The judgment emphasized that allowing such actions would cause irreparable loss to the plaintiff.

Date of Decision : April 30, 2024.

Bhavik Koladia vs. Ashneer Grover & Anr.

 

Latest Legal News