Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Accused Not Entitled To Copies Of 'Unrelied' Upon Documents At The Stage Of Framing Of Charges Under Section 91 CrPC: Supreme Court Elected Representatives Have No Privilege To Resort To Violence; Criminal Antecedents Are Material For Bail Adjudication: Supreme Court Mere Absence Of Transport Documents Does Not Create A Presumption Of Violation Of Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004: Supreme Court Section 396 IPC | Conviction For 'Dacoity With Murder' Requires Proof That Murder Was Committed In The Course Of Dacoity: Allahabad High Court 'Developers Cannot Delay Conveyance For Eternity And Milk Additional FSI Benefits': Bombay High Court Upholds Societies' Deemed Conveyance Pre-Approval Statutory Dues Stand Extinguished Upon Approval Of Resolution Plan; GST Authorities Cannot Initiate Fresh Proceedings: Calcutta High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell With Delivery Of Possession Is Admissible In A Suit For Specific Performance: Delhi High Court Stigmatic Order Discharging Probationer Without Inquiry Is Void For Violation Of Natural Justice: Gujarat High Court Execution Proceedings | Court Cannot Impose Arbitrary Financial Conditions Without Reason In Stay Applications: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 528 BNSS | High Court Cannot Exercise Inherent Powers To Circumvent Statutory Bar Against Second Revision: Delhi High Court Advocate Empanelment | Restriction On Multiple Applications Is A Procedural Choice Within Employer’s Domain: Delhi High Court Acquittal Appeal | Double Presumption Of Innocence In Favour Of Accused Cannot Be Disturbed Merely Because Another View Is Possible: Gujarat High Court SC/ST Act | Offence Under Section 3(1)(g) Not Attracted If Dispossession Or Interference Is Not Due To Victim's Caste: Himachal Pradesh High Court Judicial Officer Must Maintain Distance From Practicing Advocates To Avoid Impropriety: Gujarat High Court Upholds Dismissal Section 183 BNSS | Investigating Officer Cannot Independently Record Further Statement Of Victim After Recording Before Magistrate: Karnataka High Court Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

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