{"id":6438,"date":"1970-01-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1969-12-31T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/the-one-legal-requirement-that-turned-a-bank-merger-into-an-eviction-supreme-court\/"},"modified":"2026-07-21T17:40:51","modified_gmt":"2026-07-21T12:10:51","slug":"the-one-legal-requirement-that-turned-a-bank-merger-into-an-eviction-supreme-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/?p=6438","title":{"rendered":"The One Legal Requirement That Turned a Bank Merger Into an Eviction: Supreme Court"},"content":{"rendered":"\nIn a significant judgment delivered by Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, the Supreme Court of India\u00a0 answered an important legal question about what happens to tenancy rights when one bank merges with another.\u00a0<\/span>\n\n\n

Bank Merger and Eviction:<\/b><\/h3>\nThe Court held that if a tenant bank merges with another bank and its tenancy rights are transferred to the new bank without the landlord\u2019s written consent, it amounts to a violation of Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958.<\/span>\n\nThis is true even if the tenancy is transferred under a law and not because the tenant chose to transfer it. Allowing the landlord\u2019s appeal, the Supreme Court restored the eviction order and made it clear that the law does not distinguish between voluntary and involuntary transfers while deciding cases under Section 14(1)(b).<\/span>\n

Background of the Case:<\/b><\/h3>\nThe case concerned a tenancy created in 1947. British Motor Car Company (1939) Ltd., the owner of premises in Pratap Building, Connaught Circus, New Delhi, had rented the property to Hindustan Commercial Bank (HCB) for non-residential use at a monthly rent of \u20b9585.<\/span>\n\nLater, on 18 December 1986, the Central Government issued a Gazette Notification under Section 45 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, based on a scheme prepared by the Reserve Bank of India. Under this scheme, Hindustan Commercial Bank (HCB) merged with Punjab National Bank (PNB). As a result, all the assets, liabilities, rights and interests of HCB, including its tenancy rights over the rented premises, automatically transferred to PNB.<\/span>\n

Landlord Goes to Court:<\/b><\/h3>\nThe landlord then filed an eviction petition under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The landlord argued that HCB had assigned or parted with possession of the rented premises in favour of PNB without first obtaining the landlord\u2019s written consent. According to the landlord, this was\u00a0 an unauthorized transfer of the tenancy, making the tenant liable to eviction.<\/span>\n

Rent Controller\u2019s Decision:<\/b><\/h3>\nThe Additional Rent Controller dismissed the eviction petition. It held that since the merger had taken place under a statutory scheme framed under the Banking Regulation Act, the landlord was bound by that scheme. The Controller observed that \u201cthe scheme of amalgamation is binding upon the petitioner\u201d and further held that \u201cPunjab National Bank is successor-in-interest, in pursuance of scheme referred above and there is neither sub-letting nor assignment, nor parting with possession of the demised premises in its favour.\u201d<\/span>\n

Tribunal Orders Eviction:<\/b><\/h3>\nThe landlord challenged this decision before the Additional Rent Control Tribunal. The Tribunal disagreed with the Rent Controller and passed an eviction order. It held that the tenant had violated Section 14(1)(b) by transferring possession without obtaining the landlord\u2019s written consent. The Tribunal observed that \u201cthe tenant\/alleged sub-tenant did breach the provisions of Section 14(1)(b) of the Act by assigning or parting with possession of the demised premises without obtaining the written consent from the landlords.\u201d<\/span>\n

High Court Gives Relief:<\/b><\/h3>\nPunjab National Bank then approached the Delhi High Court. The High Court set aside the eviction order by relying on its earlier decision in <\/span>Asha Rohatgi v. Erstwhile New Bank of India<\/span><\/i>. It held that the merger was not a voluntary act of the tenant but had taken place because of a Gazette Notification issued by the Central Government. The High Court observed that \u201cit was a merger consequent to a Gazette Notification issued by the Central Government over which the tenant had no control\u201d and therefore concluded that \u201cthe ground of subletting was rightly held to be not available to the landlord.\u201d<\/span>\n

Issue Before Supreme Court:<\/b><\/h3>\n

The landlord challenged the High Court\u2019s judgment before the Supreme Court. The main question before the Court was whether the merger of Hindustan Commercial Bank with Punjab National Bank under a scheme framed under Section 45 of the Banking Regulation Act amounted to an assignment or parting with possession under Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act.<\/span><\/h3>\n

What the Law Requires:<\/b><\/h3>\nThe Supreme Court first examined Section 14(1)(b) of the Delhi Rent Control Act. The provision allows a landlord to evict a tenant if the tenant sublets, assigns, or otherwise parts with possession of the rented premises without the landlord\u2019s written consent. The Court explained that two conditions must be met before eviction can be ordered. First, there must be a transfer of possession or tenancy rights. Second, the transfer must have taken place without the landlord\u2019s written consent.<\/span>\n

Meaning of \u2018Parting with Possession\u2019:<\/b><\/h3>\nExplaining the meaning of \u201cparting with possession,\u201d the Court said that the tenant must give up not only physical possession but also the legal right to possess the premises. Referring to its\u00a0 earlier judgments, the Court said that once the original tenant no longer has\u00a0 control over the premises and another entity takes its place, the requirement of \u201cparting with possession\u201d is satisfied.<\/span>\n

Effect of the Merger:<\/b><\/h3>\nThe Court also explained the legal effect of an amalgamation. It said that when two companies merge, the transferor company loses its separate legal identity. After the merger, the original company no longer\u00a0 exists, and all its rights and liabilities pass to the transferee company. Applying this principle, the Court noted that Hindustan Commercial Bank no longer existed\u00a0 after the merger and all its tenancy rights had passed to Punjab National Bank.<\/span>\n

Voluntary or Not Doesn\u2019t Matter:<\/b><\/h3>\nOne of PNB\u2019s main arguments was that the transfer of tenancy was not voluntary because it happened under a statutory scheme framed under the Banking Regulation Act and not because of any decision taken by the tenant. The Supreme Court <\/span>rejected<\/b> this argument. It relied on its earlier decisions in <\/span>Parasram Harnand Rao v. Shanti Prasad Narinder Kumar Jain<\/i><\/b> and <\/b>Singer India Ltd. v. Chander Mohan Chadha<\/i><\/b>, which had\u00a0 given a broad interpretation to\u00a0 Section 14(1)(b).<\/span>\n\nThe Court clearly\u00a0 observed:<\/span>\n\n\u201cthe applicability of Section 14(1)(b) depends upon occurrence of a factual situation, namely, sub-letting or assignment or otherwise parting with possession of the whole or any part of the premises by the tenant. Whether it is a voluntary act of the tenant or otherwise and also the reasons for doing so are wholly irrelevant and can have no bearing.\u201d<\/span>\n\nThe Court rejected the distinction between voluntary and involuntary transfers. It further held that<\/span>:<\/b>\n\n\u201cthe said provision does not distinguish between voluntary and involuntary transfers, nor does it carve out any exception in favour of transfers effected pursuant to a scheme of amalgamation or to secure compliance with law.\u201d<\/span>\n

Court Applies the Law<\/b>:<\/b><\/h3>\nThe Supreme Court further observed that once the merger took effect, Hindustan Commercial Bank no longer\u00a0 existed,\u00a0 and all its tenancy rights automatically passed to\u00a0 Punjab National Bank. Since the landlord\u2019s written consent had admittedly not been obtained, both conditions under Section 14(1)(b) were fully satisfied. The Court therefore held:<\/span>\n\n\u201cwhere, upon amalgamation effected under Section 45 of the Banking Regulation Act, the tenancy rights vest in another entity and possession qua tenanted premises passes to it without the written consent of the landlord, the ingredients of Section 14(1)(b) shall stand fully satisfied.\u201d<\/span>\n

Scheme Cannot Override Rent Law:<\/b><\/h3>\nThe Court also considered whether a scheme framed under Section 45 of the Banking Regulation Act had the force of law and could override the Delhi Rent Control Act. The respondents argued that because the merger took place under a statutory scheme approved by the Central Government, it should not\u00a0 be treated like a normal\u00a0 assignment.<\/span>\n\nThe Supreme Court rejected this argument by relying on the Constitution Bench decision in <\/span>K.I. Shephard v. Union of India<\/i><\/b>. <\/b>Referring to that judgment, the Court said\u00a0 that, \u201cthe scheme-making process under Section 45 of the Banking Regulation Act is administrative in nature and not legislative.<\/span>\u201d<\/b> Therefore, such a scheme cannot override the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act or create an exception to Section 14(1)(b).<\/span>\n

High Court Was Wrong:<\/b><\/h3>\nThe Court also held that the Delhi High Court had wrongly relied on <\/span>Asha Rohatgi<\/span><\/i>. It explained that the earlier case dealt with\u00a0 a scheme framed under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980, which works\u00a0 under a completely different legal framework. The Supreme Court pointed out that schemes under the Acquisition Act are legislative in nature, whereas schemes under Section 45 of the Banking Regulation Act are administrative. Therefore, the High Court was wrong in treating\u00a0 both types of schemes as the same.<\/span>\n

Final Decision:<\/b><\/h3>\nAfter considering all the issues, the Supreme Court allowed the landlord\u2019s appeal, set aside the Delhi High Court\u2019s judgment and restored the eviction order passed by the Additional Rent Control Tribunal.<\/span>\n\nAt the same time, considering that Punjab National Bank had been occupying the premises for many years, the Court granted it time until <\/span>31 January 2027<\/b> to peacefully vacate the premises after filing the required undertaking before the Court.<\/span>\n\nCase Details: <\/span>BRITISH MOTOR CAR COMPANY (1939) LTD. Versus M\/S HINDUSTAN COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. SINCE HAS BEEN MERGED INTO PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ANR.<\/span><\/a>\n\n \n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In a significant judgment delivered by Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, the Supreme Court of India\u00a0 answered an important legal question about what happens to tenancy rights when one bank merges with another.\u00a0 Bank Merger and Eviction: The Court held that if a tenant bank merges with another bank and its tenancy […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":90,"featured_media":10036,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"footnotes":""},"categories":[9],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6438","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-supreme-court"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nThe One Legal Requirement That Turned a Bank Merger Into an Eviction: Supreme Court - Lawful Talks<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"noindex, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_GB\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The One Legal Requirement That Turned a Bank Merger Into an Eviction: Supreme Court\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"In a significant judgment delivered by Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, the Supreme Court of India\u00a0 answered an important legal question about what happens to tenancy rights when one bank merges with another.\u00a0 Bank Merger and Eviction: The Court held that if a tenant bank merges with another bank and its tenancy […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/?p=6438\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Lawful Talks\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1969-12-31T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-07-21T12:10:51+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/1e12f039aa96fe81165d487ee1d39620_2.jpeg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"850\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"650\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Shalini Chavan\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Shalini Chavan\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Estimated reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\\\/?p=6438#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\\\/?p=6438\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Shalini Chavan\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/f10b360c53bd13bc84969e0ca725dc1d\"},\"headline\":\"The One Legal Requirement That Turned a Bank Merger Into an Eviction: Supreme Court\",\"datePublished\":\"1969-12-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-21T12:10:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\\\/?p=6438\"},\"wordCount\":1491,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\\\/?p=6438#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/1e12f039aa96fe81165d487ee1d39620_2.jpeg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\\\/?p=6438#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\\\/?p=6438\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\\\/?p=6438\",\"name\":\"The One Legal Requirement That Turned a Bank Merger Into an Eviction: Supreme Court - Lawful Talks\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\\\/?p=6438#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\\\/?p=6438#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/1e12f039aa96fe81165d487ee1d39620_2.jpeg\",\"datePublished\":\"1969-12-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-21T12:10:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\\\/?p=6438#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\\\/?p=6438\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\\\/?p=6438#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/1e12f039aa96fe81165d487ee1d39620_2.jpeg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/1e12f039aa96fe81165d487ee1d39620_2.jpeg\",\"width\":850,\"height\":650},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\\\/?p=6438#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The One Legal Requirement That Turned a Bank Merger Into an Eviction: Supreme Court\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\\\/\",\"name\":\"Lawful Talks\",\"description\":\"Trusted Legal News and Thoughtful Analysis.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Lawful Talks\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/04\\\/open-graph-image-lawful-talks.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/04\\\/open-graph-image-lawful-talks.jpg\",\"width\":1200,\"height\":630,\"caption\":\"Lawful Talks\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/f10b360c53bd13bc84969e0ca725dc1d\",\"name\":\"Shalini Chavan\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/2a329ac112269c4026efc5a50f57ffac4505075213cb5b54cafda73e7f5ecdd8?s=96&d=blank&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/2a329ac112269c4026efc5a50f57ffac4505075213cb5b54cafda73e7f5ecdd8?s=96&d=blank&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/2a329ac112269c4026efc5a50f57ffac4505075213cb5b54cafda73e7f5ecdd8?s=96&d=blank&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Shalini Chavan\"},\"description\":\"Advocate, Bombay High Court\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\\\/?author=90\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The One Legal Requirement That Turned a Bank Merger Into an Eviction: Supreme Court - Lawful Talks","robots":{"index":"noindex","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"og_locale":"en_GB","og_type":"article","og_title":"The One Legal Requirement That Turned a Bank Merger Into an Eviction: Supreme Court","og_description":"In a significant judgment delivered by Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, the Supreme Court of India\u00a0 answered an important legal question about what happens to tenancy rights when one bank merges with another.\u00a0 Bank Merger and Eviction: The Court held that if a tenant bank merges with another bank and its tenancy […]","og_url":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/?p=6438","og_site_name":"Lawful Talks","article_published_time":"1969-12-31T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-07-21T12:10:51+00:00","og_image":[{"width":850,"height":650,"url":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/1e12f039aa96fe81165d487ee1d39620_2.jpeg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Shalini Chavan","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Shalini Chavan","Estimated reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/?p=6438#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/?p=6438"},"author":{"name":"Shalini Chavan","@id":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/#\/schema\/person\/f10b360c53bd13bc84969e0ca725dc1d"},"headline":"The One Legal Requirement That Turned a Bank Merger Into an Eviction: Supreme Court","datePublished":"1969-12-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-21T12:10:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/?p=6438"},"wordCount":1491,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/?p=6438#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/1e12f039aa96fe81165d487ee1d39620_2.jpeg","articleSection":["Supreme Court"],"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/?p=6438#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/?p=6438","url":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/?p=6438","name":"The One Legal Requirement That Turned a Bank Merger Into an Eviction: Supreme Court - Lawful Talks","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/?p=6438#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/?p=6438#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/1e12f039aa96fe81165d487ee1d39620_2.jpeg","datePublished":"1969-12-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-21T12:10:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/?p=6438#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/?p=6438"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/?p=6438#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/1e12f039aa96fe81165d487ee1d39620_2.jpeg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/1e12f039aa96fe81165d487ee1d39620_2.jpeg","width":850,"height":650},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/?p=6438#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The One Legal Requirement That Turned a Bank Merger Into an Eviction: Supreme Court"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/#website","url":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/","name":"Lawful Talks","description":"Trusted Legal News and Thoughtful Analysis.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/#organization","name":"Lawful Talks","url":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/open-graph-image-lawful-talks.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/open-graph-image-lawful-talks.jpg","width":1200,"height":630,"caption":"Lawful Talks"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/#\/schema\/person\/f10b360c53bd13bc84969e0ca725dc1d","name":"Shalini Chavan","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/2a329ac112269c4026efc5a50f57ffac4505075213cb5b54cafda73e7f5ecdd8?s=96&d=blank&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/2a329ac112269c4026efc5a50f57ffac4505075213cb5b54cafda73e7f5ecdd8?s=96&d=blank&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/2a329ac112269c4026efc5a50f57ffac4505075213cb5b54cafda73e7f5ecdd8?s=96&d=blank&r=g","caption":"Shalini Chavan"},"description":"Advocate, Bombay High Court","url":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/?author=90"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6438","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/90"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=6438"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6438\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":10035,"href":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6438\/revisions\/10035"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/10036"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=6438"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=6438"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawfultalks3.selfst.art\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=6438"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}