Posts

Expanding the ambit of IT Act in a bid for increased digitalisation

/0 Comments/in /by

– Neha Sinha, Assistant Legal Advisor | finserv@vinodkothari.com

Introduction

The Information Technology Act, 2000 (‘IT Act’) allows digital execution of documents by way of electronic and digital signatures. While the reach of IT Act is wide, certain contracts and transactions were excluded from its ambit. The First Schedule of IT Act enumerates the documents or transactions to which IT Act is not applicable and such documents or transactions cannot be signed digitally. Recently, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology has released a notification amending the First Schedule of the IT Act. The amendments are as follows:

  1. Entry No. 5 of the said Schedule included “any contract for sale or conveyance of immovable property or any interest in such property”. Contracts for sale of immovable property fell outside the scope of the IT Act and hence, could not be signed digitally. The Amendment has omitted the Entry No. 5, thus, bringing contracts for sale or conveyance of immovable property within the ambit of the IT Act. This amendment allows a contract for sale of immovable property to be executed digitally.
  2. Entry No. 2 of the said Schedule contained power-of-attorney, thus, excluding it from the purview of the IT Act. The amendment allows the application of the IT Act to those power-of-attorney that empower an entity regulated by the RBI, National Housing Bank, SEBI, IRDAI and PFRDA to act for the person executing it. Hence, a power-of-attorney in favour of entities regulated by these bodies can now be executed digitally.
  3. Entry No. 1 of the said Schedule, excluded the application of the IT Act to negotiable instruments other than a cheque. Hence, negotiable instruments could not be signed digitally, but cheques were exempt from this provision and they could be signed digitally.  The amendment has included other negotiable instruments and brought them within the purview of the IT Act. Now, a cheque, a demand promissory note or a bill of exchange issued in favour of or endorsed by an entity regulated by the Reserve Bank of India, National Housing Bank, Securities and Exchange Board of India, Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India and Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority, can be signed digitally.
Read more →

Mortgage on movable property –  whether another lucrative option for lenders?

/0 Comments/in , /by

– Sikha Bansal, Partner & Shraddha Shivani, Executive | corplaw@vinodkothari.com

Introduction

Pledge[1], hypothecation, mortgage – these are all forms of security interest[2], albeit with different features. Although the common objective of any form of security interest is to create a right in rem[3] (rather than in personam[4]) in favour of the lender, the effectiveness of the security interest would depend on the extent of overarching rights created by such security interest in favour of the lender. In another article[5], we have drawn a quick snapshot of the characteristics of each form of security interest. For instance, in hypothecation, the lender does not have any right of possession or any beneficial interest in the property, and the lender’s rights are limited to cause a sale on default; on the other hand, a mortgage (depending upon the type) may have far better rights – including the right to have the title, beneficial interest, etc. In fact, as we discuss elaborately in this article, a mortgage has several motivations for the lender.

However, a conventional notion around mortgages has been that the concept of ‘mortgage’ is only applicable to immovable property. This common view arises in view of explicit provisions under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (‘TP Act’). On the other hand, there are no written/codified provisions on mortgage of movable property. It is not that the Courts have not discussed and debated on the same. There have been ample opportunities before the Courts (as this article highlights), wherein Courts have upheld mortgages of movable properties as well. As such, it  cannot be said that there has not been any decisive jurisprudence around the subject, however, the recent ruling of Supreme Court in PTC India Financial Services Limited v. Venkateshwar Kari and Another strongly revives the discussion and reinforces the argument that ‘mortgage of movables’ is perfectly possible, although not exactly in terms of the Contract Act; however, under common law principles of equity and natural justice. In fact, in his book Securitisation, Asset Reconstruction and Enforcement of Security Interests, Vinod Kothari, has discussed about ‘chattel mortgages’.

Here, it is important to understand the relevance of this discussion. As we discuss below, a mortgage is seen as the strongest form of security interest – a pledge or a hypothecation create much lesser rights in favour of the secured lender. Hence, from a lender’s perspective, it is always beneficial to have ‘better’ rights in terms of beneficial interest and control. Also, mortgages can be of various kinds (as discussed below), hence, the parties may have the flexibility to structure and opt for a suitable form of security interest.

The article thus, studies the jurisprudence around mortgage of movable property, and the principles which must be followed in order to effect the same. The article also studies how the PTC India ruling has revived the discussion around mortgage of movables.  However, before we do so, it would be extremely important to understand the features of a mortgage and how a mortgage can be used as a superior tool of security interest.

Read more →