<?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>1958 (4) TMI 25 - HIGH COURT OF MYSORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97627</link>
    <description>A company branch manager may validly endorse a promissory note on implied authority where the articles authorise the managing director to negotiate negotiable instruments and to delegate those powers, and section 89 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 recognises acts done under express or implied authority. In such a case, a transferee may rely on the company&#039;s constitution and claim as a holder in due course unless the defendants displace authority under section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The endorsement was treated as valid, but the amount already paid before assignment was conclusive, so liability remained only for the proved balance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Apr 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2012 15:04:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134684" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1958 (4) TMI 25 - HIGH COURT OF MYSORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97627</link>
      <description>A company branch manager may validly endorse a promissory note on implied authority where the articles authorise the managing director to negotiate negotiable instruments and to delegate those powers, and section 89 of the Indian Companies Act, 1913 recognises acts done under express or implied authority. In such a case, a transferee may rely on the company&#039;s constitution and claim as a holder in due course unless the defendants displace authority under section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The endorsement was treated as valid, but the amount already paid before assignment was conclusive, so liability remained only for the proved balance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Apr 1958 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97627</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>