#property attachment

Bombay High Court Aurangabad Bench allows stay of auction proceedings for a money decree without requiring deposit of decretal amount, where the property is alleged to be benami. The ruling emphasizes that courts must examine pleadings and burden of proof in benami transactions before attaching assets, offering relief to defendants in property disputes.

Bombay High Court rules that builders cannot seek vacation of property attachment orders under MahaRERA without first complying with recovery certificates. The judgment reinforces strict enforcement of consumer rights, mandating full payment of dues before any relief is granted to defaulting developers.

The Kerala High Court has ruled that a third party with a legitimate interest in property, even if not a borrower or guarantor, can invoke Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act to challenge a bank’s recovery action. The sale of the property must be stayed until the appellant obtains a certified copy of the DRT’s order, ensuring procedural fairness and preventing irreversible harm before legal redress is complete.

Bombay High Court rules that under the MPID Act, residential properties cannot be prioritized for attachment if other assets (e.g., a Rs. 302 crore hotel) sufficiently cover depositor dues. The judgment reinforces the proportionality principle and the right to shelter, setting a precedent for asset attachment cases involving financial fraud.

The Gauhati High Court has ruled that under the PMLA, property acquired prior to a scheduled offense cannot be classified as proceeds of crime merely based on its value or timing of acquisition. The ED must establish a direct nexus between the property and the offense, reinforcing that mere possession or unexplained wealth is insufficient for attachment - a critical safeguard for law-abiding property owners caught in enforcement dragnets.

Madhya Pradesh High Court rules that a willful violation of a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC empowers courts to attach the violator’s entire property interest, not merely the disputed land. The judgment also imposes civil imprisonment on all parties involved, setting a precedent for stricter enforcement in injunction breach cases.

Kerala High Court holds that banks claiming prior mortgage rights under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC must produce original documents to prove mortgage creation and subsequent transfers.

Bombay High Court rules that recovery proceedings under Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act cannot override prior lawful property transfers, protecting bona fide purchasers.