Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 1971 (4) TMI SC This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1971 (4) TMI 96 - SC - Indian Laws

Issues:
1. Seizure of sugar by the government and determination of the rights of the Bank as a pledgee.
2. Validity of the seizure order and its impact on the Bank's rights as a pledgee.
3. Interpretation of Sections 172, 173, 176, 180, and 181 of the Contract Act in relation to the pledge.
4. Priority of the Bank's claim as a secured creditor over unsecured creditors.
5. Rights of the Bank as a Pawnee in the case of lawful seizure by the Government.
6. Liability of the Government to reimburse the Bank for the amount secured by the pledge.

The Supreme Court heard an appeal concerning the seizure of sugar by the government from the Bank, acting as a pledgee, under a cash credit system agreement. The Bank held the sugar as security for advances made to defendant No. 2. The trial court held the seizure order valid but ruled that the Bank's rights as a pledgee were not extinguished by the seizure. The High Court, however, held that since the Bank was not wrongfully deprived of the sugar, it was not entitled to a decree against the State but against defendant No. 2 and others. The Court analyzed Sections 172, 173, 176, 180, and 181 of the Contract Act, emphasizing the Bank's special property interest as a Pawnee and its right to sell the goods on default by the pawnor. The Court concluded that the Bank's claim as a secured creditor could not be defeated by lawful seizure, and the Government was obligated to reimburse the Bank for the amount secured by the pledge. The Court overturned the High Court's decision and granted a decree against the State of Bihar in favor of the Bank, upholding the Bank's rights as a pledgee and secured creditor. Defendants 3 to 5 did not appeal, and the decree against them was upheld. The appeal was allowed, and the Bank was awarded costs throughout.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates