<?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>1951 (9) TMI 23 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97134</link>
    <description>Financier retained a lien on the company&#039;s uncalled share capital because the finance agreement expressly granted rights to call and forfeit uncalled capital on default and the agent&#039;s authority was limited to the agreement&#039;s terms; the District Judge&#039;s recognition of that lien is upheld. The agent&#039;s receipt and the financier&#039;s subsequent letter did not effect a full discharge or ratification because agency powers must be strictly construed, the agent exceeded no authorised authority for broader relinquishment, and only a limited ex gratia concession was recorded; therefore the financier&#039;s broader claim to uncalled capital remains enforceable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Sep 1951 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 Jan 2012 11:45:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134192" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1951 (9) TMI 23 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97134</link>
      <description>Financier retained a lien on the company&#039;s uncalled share capital because the finance agreement expressly granted rights to call and forfeit uncalled capital on default and the agent&#039;s authority was limited to the agreement&#039;s terms; the District Judge&#039;s recognition of that lien is upheld. The agent&#039;s receipt and the financier&#039;s subsequent letter did not effect a full discharge or ratification because agency powers must be strictly construed, the agent exceeded no authorised authority for broader relinquishment, and only a limited ex gratia concession was recorded; therefore the financier&#039;s broader claim to uncalled capital remains enforceable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Sep 1951 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97134</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>