KURIAN JOSEPH, V.K.AHUJA, V.K.SHARMA
Bhandaru Ram (deceased) through his L. R. Rattan Lal – Appellant
Versus
Sukh Ram – Respondent
Kurian Joseph, C.J.—“Once a mortgage always a mortgage” is a principle based on equity, justice and good conscience evolved for the first time in 1681 by Lord Nottingham. The reference to that effect is available in “Law of Mortgage” by Dr. Rashbehary Ghose, 8th Edition at page 281, which reads as follows:
“In 1681 Lord Nottingham in the leading case of Harris v. Harris1 firmly laid down the principle: ‘Once a mortgage, always a mortgage.’ This is a doctrine to protect the mortgagor’s right of redemption: It renders all agreements in a mortgage for forfeiture of the right to redeem and also encumbrances of or dealings with the property by the mortgagee as against a mortgagor coming to redeem. In 1902, the well known maxim, ‘once a mortgage, always a mortgage’ was supplemented by the words ‘and nothing but a mortgage’ added by Lord Davey in the leading case of Noakes v. Rice2, in which the maxim was explained to mean ‘that a mortgage cannot be made irredeemable and a provision to that effect is void’. The maxim has been supplemented in the Indian context by the words and therefore always redeemable,’ added by Justice Sarkar of the Supreme Court in the case of Seth Ganga
Prabhakaran v. M. Azhagiri Pillai (dead) by LRs
Raymond Synthetic Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
M/s. Morvi Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Calcutta
Ram Kishan & Ors. v. Sheo Ram and Ors.
Sampuran Singh and Ors. v. Niranjan Kaur and Ors.
Panchanan Sharma v. Basudeo Prasad Jaganani and Ors.
State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Rakha & Ors.
Jayasingh Dnyanu Mhoprekar and Anr. v. Krishna Babaji Patil and Anr.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.