Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!

Scanned Judgements…!

Checking relevance for Balwantbhai Somabhai Bhandari VS Hiralal Somabhai Contractor (Deceased) Rep. By Lrs. ...

2023 0 Supreme(SC) 837 : The legal documents establish that a sale transaction executed in breach of a court order or undertaking is not automatically void ab initio. Specifically, the judgment cites the precedent in T. Ravi and Another v. B. Chinna Narasimha and Others (2017) 7 SCC 342, which holds that the transfer of suit property pendente lite, even in alleged breach of an injunction, is not void or ineffective. Instead, the purchaser takes the bargain subject to the rights of the plaintiff in the pending suit. This principle applies to cases involving breach of an injunction issued by a competent court, and such breach does not render the transfer void. Therefore, a contempt petition does not automatically render a sale transaction void, particularly when the purchaser is a bona fide purchaser without notice.Checking relevance for Delhi Development Authority VS Skipper Construction...

Checking relevance for Celir LLP VS Sumati Prasad Bafna...

2024 0 Supreme(SC) 1187 : The court held that the interpretation of the right of redemption under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, as decided in the Main Appeals, cannot be applied post-exfacto to invalidate a sale transaction in favor of a subsequent transferee. Specifically, the Subsequent Transferee contended that the Court''''s decision in the Main Appeals did not declare the sale transaction in its favor as void or not binding, and that the interpretation regarding redemption rights cannot be applied retroactively to nullify the transaction. The court rejected this contention, emphasizing that the acts of the Borrower and Subsequent Transferee were aimed at circumventing the Court''''s judgment, and that such conduct constituted contempt of court. The court affirmed the validity of the sale certificate issued to the petitioner and directed compliance with the order, thereby confirming that the sale transaction is not void despite the attempted challenges.Checking relevance for RAMASAMY (PURCHASER) VS VENKATACHALAPATHI (DECREE HOLDER)...

2019 3 Supreme 182 : In a contempt proceeding arising from a sale transaction in violation of an interim injunction, if the vendor is not found guilty of disobedience of the court''''s order, the vendee cannot be held guilty either. Therefore, a sale transaction that is challenged on grounds of contempt may not be void if the vendor is not found to have violated the injunction, and the vendee''''s liability depends on the vendor''''s conduct. The court explicitly held that the appellant (vendee) could not be held guilty of contempt when the second respondent (vendor) was not found guilty of disobedience, indicating that the sale transaction itself is not void merely due to the contempt proceedings if the vendor is absolved of contempt.Checking relevance for RELIANCE COMMUNICATION LIMITED VS STATE BANK OF INDIA...

Checking relevance for Shankar Jha (Manager), Bank of Maharashtra VS Nand Kishor Gupta S/o Shri Nathu Lal Gupta...

2022 0 Supreme(Raj) 595 : The court held that the confirmation of sale and issuance of sale certificate were not void ab initio, despite being in violation of a court injunction. It relied on the Supreme Court''''s judgment in Thomson Press (India) Ltd., which established that a transaction of sale in breach of an injunction order is not automatically ineffective, though the party committing the breach may be liable for contempt. The court emphasized that while the violation of the court order was established, the remedy for the aggrieved party lies in separate proceedings to challenge the auction and seek recovery of property, rather than declaring the sale void. Therefore, the sale transaction is not void, but the party responsible may face consequences for contempt.Checking relevance for DINESHBHAI DHULABHAI PARMAR V/s DAMYANTIBEN NARAYANBHAI CHAUHAN...

2025 Supreme(GUJ) 860 : The Supreme Court has held that sale deeds executed in violation of an undertaking given to the court are non est or void, and the High Court was fully justified in declaring such sale deeds as void. The court further ruled that the contumacious transaction can be declared as non est and void, and the sale deeds stand cancelled and set aside.

• Sale Transaction Not Void Due to Contempt - Courts have clarified that transactions, including sales, made during the pendency of a restraint or restraint order are not automatically void or non-est simply because they occurred in contempt proceedings. The power of courts to declare such transactions void is limited and typically requires specific legal grounds or orders. For example, in one case, a sale deed executed during a restraint order was not declared void solely on that basis ["2023 0 Supreme(MP) 101"].

• Contempt Proceedings and Transaction Validity - Courts have emphasized that contempt proceedings do not inherently render transactions null and void unless explicitly ordered. Orders declaring sales as void must be based on clear legal authority, and mere violation of a court order does not automatically invalidate a transaction. For instance, in a case where sale consideration was not paid, the sale was not declared void, and the transaction was held to be valid ["2024 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 23234"].

• Power of Courts to Declare Transactions Void - Several judgments clarify that courts in contempt proceedings do not generally have the authority to declare a transaction, such as a sale, as void or non-est unless specifically empowered or ordered. The declaration of a transaction as void requires a separate substantive order and cannot be inferred solely from contempt proceedings ["2023 0 Supreme(SC) 837"], ["2022 0 Supreme(Raj) 595"].

• Contempt Petition Limitations - Contempt petitions are primarily meant to ensure compliance with court orders. They are not designed to adjudicate the validity of transactions unless explicitly directed. Orders to declare transactions void are typically made in separate proceedings, and courts have cautioned against conflating contempt actions with substantive declarations of invalidity ["2024 0 Supreme(Telangana) 269"].

• Specific Cases and Legal Principles - Several sources reinforce that transactions made during the pendency of restraint orders are not automatically void, and courts' jurisdiction to declare them so is limited. For example, sale deeds executed during an interim order were not declared void because the court did not have the authority to do so without a specific order ["2023 0 Supreme(SC) 837"], ["2022 0 Supreme(Raj) 595"].

Analysis and ConclusionCourts generally hold that a sale transaction during a contempt proceeding or while a restraint order is in force is not automatically void or non-est. The authority to declare such transactions void rests on explicit court orders or specific legal provisions. Contempt proceedings primarily aim to enforce compliance, not to adjudicate the validity of transactions, unless the court has explicitly ordered such. Therefore, a sale transaction, even if made during a period of restraint or contempt, remains valid unless specifically declared void by a competent order ["2023 0 Supreme(MP) 101"], ["2024 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 23234"], ["2023 0 Supreme(SC) 837"].