Sale of a property by Bank invoking SARFESI is as good as sale made by borrower


Madras High Court in the matter of R. Arumugasamy Vs Authorised officer; Review Petition no. 82 and 83 of 2016 held that where there is more than one property mortgaged with the secured creditor, it is the choice of the secured creditor as to against which property it intends to proceed. A sale made by a secured creditor under Section 13(6) of SARFESI Act is as good as the sale made by the borrower.

Bar of Section 92 Evidence Act does not operate when the document is sham and not to be acted upon #legalupdates


In a case before the Madras HC, the court relied on judgments by the Apex Court in Gangabai vs. Chhabubai AIR 1982 SC 20 and Ishwar Dass Jain vs. Sohan Lal AIR 2000 SC 426 and held that it is permissible to a party to a deed to contend that the deed was not intended to be acted upon but was only a sham document. The bar of Section 92 Evidence Act arises only when the document is relied upon and its terms are sought to be varied and contradicted.

Child Marriage does not automatically become void #indianlaws


Section 3 makes provision for avoidance of marriage by contracting party, who was a child at the time thereof, through filing a petition for annulling the marriage by such party. Section 3(3) has to be read that in the case of a male, a petition for annulment of child marriage should be filed before he completes two years of attaining twenty-one years of age. 

Marriages performed in secrecy in the chambers of Advocates and Bar Association Rooms does not amount to solemnisation


 Marriages performed in secrecy in the chambers of Advocates and Bar Association Rooms, will not amount to solemnisation and only women who are victims of such marriage can question the same in matrimonial proceedings before the appropriate Court as a question of fact;

Withdrawal of compensation after expiry of five years-Section 24 attracted #indianlaws


Withdrawal of compensation after expiry of five years of passing of award will not come in the way of attracting the mischief of Section 24 RFCTLARR Act 2013

Limitations in extending bar under Section 42 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996


By merely filing an application before any Court, the bar under Section 42 cannot be extended, when another application is filed by a party before another Court, which has got jurisdiction. The Madras High Court in its recent decision held that section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, cannot be invoked unless the parties disputing the jurisdiction proves that the Court which entertained the first application has the jurisdiction to entertain such application.

© 2010-15