https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284047 The note clarifies three legal points: first, an interim court order limiting creditor payments to 60% did not bar creditors from satisfying claims by adjustment against the company's debtors, so such adjustments were permitted outside the 60% cap. Second, transfers by the bank were not fraudulent preferences because they were made outside the temporal mischief drawn from insolvency law and thus did not fall within the doctrine of fraudulent preference. Third, presentment is generally required to charge parties other than the acceptor or maker; part payment removes presentment only if the payer knew presentment had not occurred, burden of proof on the payer. en-us Thu, 28 Jan 1954 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 24 Oct 2019 15:50:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284047 The note clarifies three legal points: first, an interim court order limiting creditor payments to 60% did not bar creditors from satisfying claims by adjustment against the company's debtors, so such adjustments were permitted outside the 60% cap. Second, transfers by the bank were not fraudulent preferences because they were made outside the temporal mischief drawn from insolvency law and thus did not fall within the doctrine of fraudulent preference. Third, presentment is generally required to charge parties other than the acceptor or maker; part payment removes presentment only if the payer knew presentment had not occurred, burden of proof on the payer. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 28 Jan 1954 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284047