<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1935 (11) TMI 20 - HIGH COURT OF LAHORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96696</link>
    <description>Liquidator authority was sufficiently established where a directors&#039; resolution empowered an authorised manager to conduct liquidation work and sign related documents; failure to specify his signing capacity in the application was a formal defect that did not invalidate the payment-order application. A debtor&#039;s signed written acknowledgment of liability, together with part payment, extended limitation even when the supporting document was admitted only for the collateral purpose of proving the debt rather than title to immovable property. Presentment of a demand promissory note did not bar the maker&#039;s liability where presentment was proved or unnecessary under negotiable instruments law. The payment order remained effective.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Nov 1935 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2012 13:27:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=133754" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1935 (11) TMI 20 - HIGH COURT OF LAHORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96696</link>
      <description>Liquidator authority was sufficiently established where a directors&#039; resolution empowered an authorised manager to conduct liquidation work and sign related documents; failure to specify his signing capacity in the application was a formal defect that did not invalidate the payment-order application. A debtor&#039;s signed written acknowledgment of liability, together with part payment, extended limitation even when the supporting document was admitted only for the collateral purpose of proving the debt rather than title to immovable property. Presentment of a demand promissory note did not bar the maker&#039;s liability where presentment was proved or unnecessary under negotiable instruments law. The payment order remained effective.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Nov 1935 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96696</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>