<?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>1990 (11) TMI 322 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102086</link>
    <description>A company may be bound by a family settlement and partition agreement, even if not signed in its name, where later conduct and corporate records show acceptance or ratification of the liability. Balance-sheet entries describing the sum as a current liability, together with notes reflecting acceptance of assets and liabilities under the settlement, were treated as strong evidence of acknowledgment of debt. A bare denial in reply, unsupported by facts, was rejected, and an ultra vires objection raised without proper factual foundation was not entertained. On that basis, the company was treated as having acknowledged the debt and its refusal to pay as unjustified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Nov 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 16:38:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=139135" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (11) TMI 322 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102086</link>
      <description>A company may be bound by a family settlement and partition agreement, even if not signed in its name, where later conduct and corporate records show acceptance or ratification of the liability. Balance-sheet entries describing the sum as a current liability, together with notes reflecting acceptance of assets and liabilities under the settlement, were treated as strong evidence of acknowledgment of debt. A bare denial in reply, unsupported by facts, was rejected, and an ultra vires objection raised without proper factual foundation was not entertained. On that basis, the company was treated as having acknowledged the debt and its refusal to pay as unjustified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Nov 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102086</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>