Detailed Description Of Concealment Not Mandatory Under Section 27 Evidence Act: Bombay High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Child Is Not A Pawn To Prove Mother's Adultery: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Husband's DNA Test Petition In Desertion Divorce Case Shareholder Ratification Cannot Cure Fraud Under SEBI's PFUTP Regulations: Supreme Court Restores Rs. 70 Lakh Penalty on Company When High Court Judges Themselves Disagree on the Answer, Can a Law Graduate Be Penalised for Getting It Wrong? Supreme Court Says No Superficial Burns Don't Mean Silence: Supreme Court Explains Why 80-90% Burn Victim Could Still Make a Valid Dying Declaration Daughter's Eyewitness Account, Dying Declaration Seal Husband's Fate: Supreme Court Upholds Life Sentence for Wife-Burning Murder Supreme Court Rejects Rs. 106 Crore Compensation Claim; Directs SECL to Supply Coal to Prakash Industries at 2014 or 2019 Prices for Wrongfully Suspended Period Section 319 CrPC | Trial Court Cannot Conduct Mini Trial While Deciding Application to Summon Additional Accused: Supreme Court Accused Can't Be Left Without Documents To Defend: Calcutta High Court Directs Adjudicating Authority To First Decide Whether Complete 'Relied Upon Documents' Were Served In PMLA Proceedings Husband Who Took Voluntary Retirement at 47 Cannot Escape Maintenance Duty: Delhi High Court Upholds ₹10,000/Month to Wife and Daughter Cannot Claim Monopoly Over a Deity's Name: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Trademark Injunction Against 'Kshetrapal Construction' Eviction Appeal Cannot Require Actual Surrender Of Possession, Symbolic Possession Sufficient: J&K High Court Amendment Introducing Time-Barred Relief And Changing Nature Of Suit Cannot Be Allowed: Karnataka High Court Counter Claim Is An Independent Suit: MP High Court Rules Properties Beyond Territorial Jurisdiction Cannot Be Dragged Into Counter Claim Co-Sharer Cannot Be Bound By Passage Carved Out Without His Consent: Punjab & Haryana High Court Modifies Concurrent Decrees ‘Prima Facie True’ Is Enough to Deny Liberty: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses Bail in Babbar Khalsa Terror Conspiracy Case High Court Cannot Quash FIR for Forgery When Handwriting Expert's Report Is Still Awaited: Supreme Court Supreme Court Calls for Paternity Leave Law, Says Father's Absence in Child's Early Years Leaves a "Quiet Cost" That Lasts a Lifetime Three-Month Age Cap for Adoptive Mothers' Maternity Benefit Struck Down: Supreme Court Reads Down Section 60(4) of Social Security Code Bank Cannot Rely on Charter Party Agreement to Justify Remittance Contrary to Customer's Instructions: Supreme Court 19 Candidates Linked to Accused, Papers of Five Subjects Leaked: Allahabad High Court Upholds Cancellation of UP Assistant Professor Exam Result

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