https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103875 An intercorporate deposit was treated as a corporate placement of surplus funds, not money-lending business, so the U.P. Regulation of Money Lending Act, 1976 did not bar the winding-up petition. The pleadings also failed to establish coercion, undue influence or absence of free consent, because the respondent voluntarily sought the deposit and executed the documents after board approval. The managing director was found to have authority to agree to the enhanced interest, with the principle of indoor management supporting the petitioner's reliance on internal authorisation. The equity shares offered as security were not readily realisable or sufficient to cover the admitted liability, so they did not defeat the petition. en-us Mon, 14 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Feb 2012 18:21:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103875 An intercorporate deposit was treated as a corporate placement of surplus funds, not money-lending business, so the U.P. Regulation of Money Lending Act, 1976 did not bar the winding-up petition. The pleadings also failed to establish coercion, undue influence or absence of free consent, because the respondent voluntarily sought the deposit and executed the documents after board approval. The managing director was found to have authority to agree to the enhanced interest, with the principle of indoor management supporting the petitioner's reliance on internal authorisation. The equity shares offered as security were not readily realisable or sufficient to cover the admitted liability, so they did not defeat the petition. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 14 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=103875