<?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>1961 (4) TMI 46 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97866</link>
    <description>Managing agents lacked authority to bind the company to issue debentures or create a charge, and any promise they made could not operate as a valid contractual obligation against the company. The later tripartite arrangement was not supported by a binding board resolution and did not show the creditor&#039;s assent to an enforceable security. On those facts, no completed or enforceable agreement to create a charge was established, and the equitable doctrine treating as done what ought to be done could not apply where the underlying obligation was unauthorized. The creditor was therefore not entitled to specific performance or a first charge over the company&#039;s assets.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 Apr 1961 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Jan 2012 13:29:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=134923" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1961 (4) TMI 46 - HIGH COURT OF MADRAS</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97866</link>
      <description>Managing agents lacked authority to bind the company to issue debentures or create a charge, and any promise they made could not operate as a valid contractual obligation against the company. The later tripartite arrangement was not supported by a binding board resolution and did not show the creditor&#039;s assent to an enforceable security. On those facts, no completed or enforceable agreement to create a charge was established, and the equitable doctrine treating as done what ought to be done could not apply where the underlying obligation was unauthorized. The creditor was therefore not entitled to specific performance or a first charge over the company&#039;s assets.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 Apr 1961 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97866</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>