https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96922 The Privy Council held that the High Court's judgment was erroneous as it failed to consider the operative part of the agreement that granted the lender priority over the debenture holders. The Court emphasized that an agreement to hypothecate was as effective as an actual hypothecation. Accordingly, the Privy Council set aside the High Court's order, restored the Subordinate Judge's order granting priority to the appellant, and directed the respondents to pay the appellant's costs for the appeals. en-us Thu, 01 Mar 1945 00:00:00 +0630 Fri, 13 Jan 2012 11:41:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96922 The Privy Council held that the High Court's judgment was erroneous as it failed to consider the operative part of the agreement that granted the lender priority over the debenture holders. The Court emphasized that an agreement to hypothecate was as effective as an actual hypothecation. Accordingly, the Privy Council set aside the High Court's order, restored the Subordinate Judge's order granting priority to the appellant, and directed the respondents to pay the appellant's costs for the appeals. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 01 Mar 1945 00:00:00 +0630 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=96922