https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96665 The court held that the bank was not liable for handling the company's funds without the scheduled agreement being executed, as it could assume the agreement was in place. The firm, acting as managing agents, was found to have operated properly as if the agreement had been sealed, justifying their expenses. The judgment emphasized the need for a contractual basis for actions for money had and received, distinguishing between actions against the company and such claims. The appeal was dismissed against both respondents, with costs awarded to the bank and no costs against the firm due to their absence during the proceedings. en-us Thu, 15 Nov 1934 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Jan 2012 12:15:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96665 The court held that the bank was not liable for handling the company's funds without the scheduled agreement being executed, as it could assume the agreement was in place. The firm, acting as managing agents, was found to have operated properly as if the agreement had been sealed, justifying their expenses. The judgment emphasized the need for a contractual basis for actions for money had and received, distinguishing between actions against the company and such claims. The appeal was dismissed against both respondents, with costs awarded to the bank and no costs against the firm due to their absence during the proceedings. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 15 Nov 1934 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96665