<?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 (11) TMI 32 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97319</link>
    <description>Section 185&#039;s summary remedy requires delivery of money or property to which the company is prima facie entitled; where a proposed scheme remained inchoate until shareholder and court sanction, no proprietary rights vested in proposed preference shareholders and the company retained legal ownership of shares and sale proceeds. A board resolution to sell and entrust proceeds to two respondents created a principal-agent relationship, not an express or constructive trust, so respondents held the funds as agents/custodians for the company. Consequently the official liquidator was prima facie entitled to require delivery of the sale proceeds under the summary procedure.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Nov 1954 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Sep 2014 08:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134377" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1954 (11) TMI 32 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97319</link>
      <description>Section 185&#039;s summary remedy requires delivery of money or property to which the company is prima facie entitled; where a proposed scheme remained inchoate until shareholder and court sanction, no proprietary rights vested in proposed preference shareholders and the company retained legal ownership of shares and sale proceeds. A board resolution to sell and entrust proceeds to two respondents created a principal-agent relationship, not an express or constructive trust, so respondents held the funds as agents/custodians for the company. Consequently the official liquidator was prima facie entitled to require delivery of the sale proceeds under the summary procedure.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Nov 1954 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97319</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>