<?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>1964 (6) TMI 29 - IN THE COURT OF APPEAL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98115</link>
    <description>Section 322 of the Companies Act, 1948 was construed to include subsequent cash advances made by a bank on the faith of an existing floating charge, even without an express obligation to advance further funds. The phrase &quot;in consideration for&quot; was read broadly, so later overdraft continuations could fall within the statutory exception. In a running bank account, post-charge credits were also appropriated in the ordinary way to the earliest outstanding debits unless a contrary appropriation was shown. On that basis, pre-charge indebtedness was reduced first, and the floating charge remained valid to the extent supported by the subsequent advances.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Feb 2018 11:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=135172" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1964 (6) TMI 29 - IN THE COURT OF APPEAL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98115</link>
      <description>Section 322 of the Companies Act, 1948 was construed to include subsequent cash advances made by a bank on the faith of an existing floating charge, even without an express obligation to advance further funds. The phrase &quot;in consideration for&quot; was read broadly, so later overdraft continuations could fall within the statutory exception. In a running bank account, post-charge credits were also appropriated in the ordinary way to the earliest outstanding debits unless a contrary appropriation was shown. On that basis, pre-charge indebtedness was reduced first, and the floating charge remained valid to the extent supported by the subsequent advances.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Jun 1964 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98115</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>