TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the two bonds were duly executed for consideration and by a competent person on behalf of the company; (ii) Whether the bonds were obtained by fraud or misrepresentation and were void and unenforceable; (iii) Whether the assignment of the bonds in favour of the plaintiff was bona fide and for consideration so as to entitle the plaintiff to maintain the suit.
Issue (i): Whether the two bonds were duly executed for consideration and by a competent person on behalf of the company.
Analysis: The bonds were executed by the company's general manager in furtherance of the company's object of purchasing the farm. The execution was subsequently ratified by the company through resolutions and payment was made pursuant to the same transaction. The evidence supported both due execution and consideration.
Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellant and in favour of the respondent.
Issue (ii): Whether the bonds were obtained by fraud or misrepresentation and were void and unenforceable.
Analysis: No convincing evidence established concealment of title defect or any fraudulent inducement. The surrounding circumstances and the conduct of the company were inconsistent with the plea of fraud or misrepresentation.
Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellant and in favour of the respondent.
Issue (iii): Whether the assignment of the bonds in favour of the plaintiff was bona fide and for consideration so as to entitle the plaintiff to maintain the suit.
Analysis: The deeds of assignment were proved by oral and documentary evidence, and the assignee's rights under an actionable claim vested on execution of the transfer instrument under Section 130 of the Transfer of Property Act. Consideration was also shown, but even otherwise the debtor could not defeat the assignment on that ground.
Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellant and in favour of the respondent.
Final Conclusion: The decree in favour of the plaintiff was upheld because the bonds were validly executed, not vitiated by fraud, and the assignee was entitled to sue on the assigned actionable claim.
Ratio Decidendi: An actionable claim is validly transferred by a written instrument signed by the transferor, and the transferee acquires the right to sue in his own name; the debtor cannot defeat such transfer merely by disputing consideration between assignor and assignee.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
