<?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>1949 (8) TMI 25 - NAGPUR HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294493</link>
    <description>A company may borrow money for the business purpose authorised by its objects and borrowing clause, including from a director, provided the director makes full disclosure and the transaction remains fair. A deposit payable on a fixed date is not treated as a demand deposit under Article 60; the ordinary limitation period for money lent applies instead. Neither the board resolution nor the balance sheets operated as valid acknowledgments because they were ineffective and not properly proved as adopted accounts, so the claim remained time-barred. Section 14 did not exclude time because a winding-up petition based on inability to pay debts is not the same cause of action as a suit for recovery of a specific debt.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Aug 1949 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Apr 2021 17:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=642085" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1949 (8) TMI 25 - NAGPUR HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294493</link>
      <description>A company may borrow money for the business purpose authorised by its objects and borrowing clause, including from a director, provided the director makes full disclosure and the transaction remains fair. A deposit payable on a fixed date is not treated as a demand deposit under Article 60; the ordinary limitation period for money lent applies instead. Neither the board resolution nor the balance sheets operated as valid acknowledgments because they were ineffective and not properly proved as adopted accounts, so the claim remained time-barred. Section 14 did not exclude time because a winding-up petition based on inability to pay debts is not the same cause of action as a suit for recovery of a specific debt.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Aug 1949 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=294493</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>