<?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>1954 (3) TMI 18 - IN THE CHANCERY DIVISION</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97275</link>
    <description>A disposition of company property made after presentation of a winding-up petition may be validated under section 227 of the Companies Act 1948 where the transaction is bona fide, made in the ordinary course of trading, and intended to benefit the company as a going concern. The court applies ordinary judicial principles in deciding whether to exercise its discretion, and a transaction designed to obtain a preference for existing creditors will not qualify. On the facts, the bank accommodation was for a limited period to enable the company to continue business, so the payment was validated and the bank was entitled to retain the sum received.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 01 Mar 1954 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Jan 2012 11:36:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134333" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1954 (3) TMI 18 - IN THE CHANCERY DIVISION</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97275</link>
      <description>A disposition of company property made after presentation of a winding-up petition may be validated under section 227 of the Companies Act 1948 where the transaction is bona fide, made in the ordinary course of trading, and intended to benefit the company as a going concern. The court applies ordinary judicial principles in deciding whether to exercise its discretion, and a transaction designed to obtain a preference for existing creditors will not qualify. On the facts, the bank accommodation was for a limited period to enable the company to continue business, so the payment was validated and the bank was entitled to retain the sum received.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Mar 1954 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97275</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>