<?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>1932 (3) TMI 22 - PRIVY COUNCIL</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277488</link>
    <description>A new plea of nonregistration will not be entertained for the first time at the final appellate stage unless it can be decided on admitted or indisputable facts and the record shows beyond doubt that full investigation would have supported it; in a personal claim for damages on an admitted contract, section 49 of the Registration Act did not require the court to reject the claim on that ground. The contemporaneous documents, course of dealing, use of company funds, and surrounding circumstances supported the finding that Moolla acted as the company&#039;s agent, so the company was treated as the undisclosed principal and remained liable on the contract.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Mar 1932 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Dec 2018 14:09:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=545665" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1932 (3) TMI 22 - PRIVY COUNCIL</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277488</link>
      <description>A new plea of nonregistration will not be entertained for the first time at the final appellate stage unless it can be decided on admitted or indisputable facts and the record shows beyond doubt that full investigation would have supported it; in a personal claim for damages on an admitted contract, section 49 of the Registration Act did not require the court to reject the claim on that ground. The contemporaneous documents, course of dealing, use of company funds, and surrounding circumstances supported the finding that Moolla acted as the company&#039;s agent, so the company was treated as the undisclosed principal and remained liable on the contract.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Mar 1932 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277488</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>