https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98319 A vendor's lien for unpaid purchase money remained enforceable even though the parties had other mutual dealings and accounts were not finally settled, and the purchaser's promissory note did not displace that statutory charge. A defence under the third proviso to Section 92 of the Evidence Act failed because there was no clear antecedent agreement postponing payment until accounts were rendered. Alleged Companies Act defects also did not invalidate the promissory note or the supporting resolutions; the relevant corporate provisions did not defeat an otherwise authorised debt transaction. The decree of dismissal was therefore set aside and the suit held entitled to succeed. en-us Thu, 06 Jan 1966 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Jan 2012 11:34:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98319 A vendor's lien for unpaid purchase money remained enforceable even though the parties had other mutual dealings and accounts were not finally settled, and the purchaser's promissory note did not displace that statutory charge. A defence under the third proviso to Section 92 of the Evidence Act failed because there was no clear antecedent agreement postponing payment until accounts were rendered. Alleged Companies Act defects also did not invalidate the promissory note or the supporting resolutions; the relevant corporate provisions did not defeat an otherwise authorised debt transaction. The decree of dismissal was therefore set aside and the suit held entitled to succeed. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 06 Jan 1966 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=98319