https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97378 A purchasing successor of a commercial undertaking remains bound by subsisting supply contracts until they are lawfully terminated or replaced, so unilateral administrative revision of contractual terms was ineffective. Estoppel did not arise from correspondence or payments under protest, and recovery on quantum meruit under section 70 of the Indian Contract Act failed while the express contracts remained in force. A floating charge over the undertaking was recognised and crystallised on receivership, but unregistered immovable property could not be included in the enforceable security without the registrations required by property and company law. Cross-decrees arising from the same contractual relationship were set off, while priority and fraudulent preference questions were left to liquidation. en-us Wed, 18 Apr 1956 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Jan 2012 14:17:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97378 A purchasing successor of a commercial undertaking remains bound by subsisting supply contracts until they are lawfully terminated or replaced, so unilateral administrative revision of contractual terms was ineffective. Estoppel did not arise from correspondence or payments under protest, and recovery on quantum meruit under section 70 of the Indian Contract Act failed while the express contracts remained in force. A floating charge over the undertaking was recognised and crystallised on receivership, but unregistered immovable property could not be included in the enforceable security without the registrations required by property and company law. Cross-decrees arising from the same contractual relationship were set off, while priority and fraudulent preference questions were left to liquidation. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 18 Apr 1956 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97378