<?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>1980 (4) TMI 238 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99778</link>
    <description>Mortgages executed by the companies were upheld as binding because the copied resolutions were corroborated by the surrounding circumstances, including execution by the managing director, directors acting as guarantors, and use of the common seal; non-production of the original minutes books did not negate apparent board authority. The charge in favour of the Corporation was not void against the appellant, since the relevant filing requirement was satisfied within extended time and later registration did not defeat the charge; pendency of winding-up proceedings did not attract section 536(2) on these facts. The supplementary instrument relating to machinery was treated as a pledge of movable property not requiring registration, and the sale order made under the State Financial Corporations Act remained effective despite the later winding-up petition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Apr 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:07:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=136830" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1980 (4) TMI 238 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99778</link>
      <description>Mortgages executed by the companies were upheld as binding because the copied resolutions were corroborated by the surrounding circumstances, including execution by the managing director, directors acting as guarantors, and use of the common seal; non-production of the original minutes books did not negate apparent board authority. The charge in favour of the Corporation was not void against the appellant, since the relevant filing requirement was satisfied within extended time and later registration did not defeat the charge; pendency of winding-up proceedings did not attract section 536(2) on these facts. The supplementary instrument relating to machinery was treated as a pledge of movable property not requiring registration, and the sale order made under the State Financial Corporations Act remained effective despite the later winding-up petition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Apr 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99778</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>