<?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>1936 (12) TMI 26 - HIGH COURT OF LAHORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96741</link>
    <description>The defendant was held liable for call money related to shares in a limited company despite attempting to repudiate the shares before company registration. The lower courts, following the precedent of Machine Exchange Co., In re, upheld the defendant&#039;s liability. The defendant&#039;s claim of misrepresentation in signing the memorandum of association was rejected, as the court found no misrepresentation in the facts presented. The judgment emphasized the application of English case law in the Indian context, affirming the lower courts&#039; decision and dismissing the second appeal with costs. Additionally, certain remarks made by the Senior Sub-Judge regarding the defendant&#039;s conduct were expunged from the judgment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Dec 1936 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2012 16:54:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=133799" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1936 (12) TMI 26 - HIGH COURT OF LAHORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96741</link>
      <description>The defendant was held liable for call money related to shares in a limited company despite attempting to repudiate the shares before company registration. The lower courts, following the precedent of Machine Exchange Co., In re, upheld the defendant&#039;s liability. The defendant&#039;s claim of misrepresentation in signing the memorandum of association was rejected, as the court found no misrepresentation in the facts presented. The judgment emphasized the application of English case law in the Indian context, affirming the lower courts&#039; decision and dismissing the second appeal with costs. Additionally, certain remarks made by the Senior Sub-Judge regarding the defendant&#039;s conduct were expunged from the judgment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Dec 1936 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96741</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>