https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96604 Clause 7 of a deed of guarantee was beyond the company's powers and void because it would let the guarantor, on paying the trustee for preference shareholders, sue the company as a creditor and obtain rights different from those attached to preference shares. That mechanism was treated as an impermissible reduction of capital rather than a valid payment for the company's objects. The clause was not accepted as true subrogation, although any separate claim to subrogation for preference dividend payments or winding-up rights was left open. en-us Wed, 11 Jan 1933 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 09 Jan 2012 16:52:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96604 Clause 7 of a deed of guarantee was beyond the company's powers and void because it would let the guarantor, on paying the trustee for preference shareholders, sue the company as a creditor and obtain rights different from those attached to preference shares. That mechanism was treated as an impermissible reduction of capital rather than a valid payment for the company's objects. The clause was not accepted as true subrogation, although any separate claim to subrogation for preference dividend payments or winding-up rights was left open. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 11 Jan 1933 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96604