The main legal point established in the judgment is that a deed dealing with both movable and immovable properties can be separated into distinct parts, and if the rights claimed are only in respect of movable properties, the deed may not attract the provisions of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Additionally, the sufficiency of stamp duty can be determined based on relevant notifications.

JUDGMENT

Debangsu Basak, J. - In a suit for declaration and injunction, the plaintiffs have sought interim order of injunction in respect of specified shares of certain legal entities on which the plaintiffs claim pledge.

2. Learned Senior advocate appearing for the plaintiffs has submitted that, the plaintiff No. 1 is a mutual fund scheme established in accordance with the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Mutual Fund) Regulations, 1996 and is a trust registered under the provisions of the Indian Trust Act, 1882. He has submitted that, the plaintiff No. 2 is an asset management company. He has drawn the attention of the court to the transactions that the plaintiffs had with the defendant Nos. 1 to 4. He has submitted that, that the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 comprise the Williamson Magor Group. He has submitted that, the defendant Nos. 5 and 6 are the promoters and directors of the defendant Nos. 1 to 4. The defendant Nos. 1 to 4 had obtain credit facilities from the plaintiffs and as security for the repayment of such credit facilities. The defendant Nos. 1 to 4 had inter alia agreed to pledge specified shares of specified legal entities in favour of the plaintiffs. He has referred to the various documents that the parties had executed. He has submitted that, the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 had enjoyed sums in excess of Rupees one hundred crores from the plaintiffs. The defendant Nos. 1 to 4 had failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the contract between the parties. The defendants had failed to pledge the agreed shares in favour of the plaintiffs. Consequently, the plaintiffs have sought for a declaration that, the shares of the specified legal entities held by the defendant numbers 1 to 4 stand pledged in favour of the plaintiffs and for consequential reliefs with regard to those shares.

3. Learned Senior advocate appearing for the plaintiffs has submitted that, in response to the notices for creation of security issued by the plaintiffs, the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 have given evasive replies. He has submitted that, the shares in question are required to be protected. He has referred to the order refusing to pass an interim injunction as prayed for in the suit. He has submitted that, on appeal, the Appeal Court had granted an order of injunction on October 8, 2020. He has submitted that, such order of injunction should be continued till the disposal of the suit.

4. Learned Senior advocate appearing for the plaintiffs has submitted that, the deed of assignment on which the plaintiffs are relying on is adequately stamped. He has referred to the gazette notification prescribing the stamp duty required for a deed of assignment. He has submitted that a deed of assignment does not require registration in the sense that, it is not compulsorily registrable. He has relied upon ( Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal, Calcutta v. Juggilal Kamlapat, (1967) AIR SC 401 ) in support of his contentions.

5. Learned Senior advocate appearing for the defendant No. 7 has submitted that, the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 enjoyed credit facilities from the defendant No. 7. On failure of the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 in making payment of such credit facilities, arbitration proceedings had ensued between the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and the defendant No. 7. He has submitted that, there exist awards in favour of the defendant Nos. 7. He has submitted that, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the arbitration proceedings had granted an order of status quo. According to him, the shares in question stand charged in favour of the defendant No. 7 and that, such charge has been registered. He has referred to the documents that the plaintiffs have relied upon as against the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and submitted that, the so-called letters of undertakings are undated. According to him, as against crystallised rights of the defendant No. 7 against the other defendants, the claims of the plaintiffs are yet to be adjudicated upon. According to him, no order of injunction should