https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98049 A floating charge under a debenture, on its true construction, crystallised over assets in existence when the receiver and manager was appointed but did not automatically fix on fresh trading debts earned afterwards by the receiver as agent of the company. Those post-receivership debts therefore remained beneficially the company's debts, so mutuality was not destroyed. A pre-existing assigned cross-claim could still be set off against the company's claim for those trading debts because the assignment did not alter the underlying mutuality between the parties. The appeal accordingly failed, although the dissent would have treated the new debts as equitably charged in favour of the debenture-holders and denied set-off. en-us Mon, 29 Jul 1963 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 Feb 2018 11:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98049 A floating charge under a debenture, on its true construction, crystallised over assets in existence when the receiver and manager was appointed but did not automatically fix on fresh trading debts earned afterwards by the receiver as agent of the company. Those post-receivership debts therefore remained beneficially the company's debts, so mutuality was not destroyed. A pre-existing assigned cross-claim could still be set off against the company's claim for those trading debts because the assignment did not alter the underlying mutuality between the parties. The appeal accordingly failed, although the dissent would have treated the new debts as equitably charged in favour of the debenture-holders and denied set-off. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 29 Jul 1963 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98049