https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97628 A possessory security over an aircraft was treated as a genuine financing transaction creating both mortgage and pledge features, so it was not a registrable mortgage or charge under section 109(1)(e) of the Indian Companies Act, 1913, and the aircraft was held to belong to the defendant company on the relevant date. The Court also held that a suit brought within the time fixed by a consent order was maintainable even without full exhaustion of prior execution remedies, because the agreement contemplated a fresh suit to establish the required facts. However, the plaintiff failed to prove the contractual conditions precedent to the defendant company's liability, so recovery was denied and the dismissal of the suit stood affirmed. en-us Wed, 03 Sep 1958 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Jan 2012 15:06:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97628 A possessory security over an aircraft was treated as a genuine financing transaction creating both mortgage and pledge features, so it was not a registrable mortgage or charge under section 109(1)(e) of the Indian Companies Act, 1913, and the aircraft was held to belong to the defendant company on the relevant date. The Court also held that a suit brought within the time fixed by a consent order was maintainable even without full exhaustion of prior execution remedies, because the agreement contemplated a fresh suit to establish the required facts. However, the plaintiff failed to prove the contractual conditions precedent to the defendant company's liability, so recovery was denied and the dismissal of the suit stood affirmed. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 03 Sep 1958 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97628