https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96611 Section 275 of the Companies Act 1929 was construed as requiring proof of actual dishonesty before fraud or a fraudulent purpose can be established, and the burden lies on the applicant alleging fraud. Section 266 was held not to be satisfied by balance-sheet solvency alone; solvency requires the company to be able to pay its debts as they fall due. The debenture holder supporting the floating charge bears the onus of proving that solvency test. On that basis, the article notes that the summons failed because fraudulent purpose was not established. en-us Wed, 15 Mar 1933 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 09 Jan 2012 17:25:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96611 Section 275 of the Companies Act 1929 was construed as requiring proof of actual dishonesty before fraud or a fraudulent purpose can be established, and the burden lies on the applicant alleging fraud. Section 266 was held not to be satisfied by balance-sheet solvency alone; solvency requires the company to be able to pay its debts as they fall due. The debenture holder supporting the floating charge bears the onus of proving that solvency test. On that basis, the article notes that the summons failed because fraudulent purpose was not established. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 15 Mar 1933 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96611