https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288083 Money paid or applied under a valid compromise or binding arrangement made by an authorised liquidator cannot be recovered under Sections 72 or 65 of the Indian Contract Act merely because a later challenge asserts that the underlying transaction was void or illegal. The Bombay High Court treated the liquidator's dealings with the defendants over blankets and cotton bales as valid and binding, supported by the surrounding correspondence and conduct, and held that the payments were neither made under a void arrangement nor by mistake. It further noted the validating effect of the Enemy Trading Act, 1916, and upheld the defendants' counter-claim based on the agreed application of sale proceeds. en-us Thu, 31 Jul 1919 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 May 2020 18:08:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288083 Money paid or applied under a valid compromise or binding arrangement made by an authorised liquidator cannot be recovered under Sections 72 or 65 of the Indian Contract Act merely because a later challenge asserts that the underlying transaction was void or illegal. The Bombay High Court treated the liquidator's dealings with the defendants over blankets and cotton bales as valid and binding, supported by the surrounding correspondence and conduct, and held that the payments were neither made under a void arrangement nor by mistake. It further noted the validating effect of the Enemy Trading Act, 1916, and upheld the defendants' counter-claim based on the agreed application of sale proceeds. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 31 Jul 1919 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288083