Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.01 seconds)Imperial Bank Of India vs Bengal National Bank Ltd. on 18 March, 1930
3. The question for decision is whether the document, Ex. P-3, is void against the liquidator for the reason that it has not been registered with the Assistant Registrar of Joint Stock Companies as required by Section 109. The applicant's-advocate contends that this document' created a pledge on the movable properties, of the Company and does not require registration under Section 109(1)(c). Although, the order of the Official Liquidator does not refer to any particular clause of Section 109, in the counter-affidavit filed by him in this application, it is stated that the document requires registration, as the applicant claims a charge on the stock-in-trade of the company. The learned advocate for the applicant conceded that a pledge on stock-in-trade would require registration, but he submitted that he was willing to give up his claim for security over stock-in-trade and was content with a declaration that he is entitled to have his security over all the properties covered! by the document, Ex. P-3 other than stock-in-trade. In the argument before me, however, the advocate for the liquidator took a different line and contended that the entire document is void against the liquidator for the reason that it amounted to creating a floating charge and hence required registration under Clause (f). He relied on the decision of the Judicial Committee in Imperial Bank of India v. Bengal National Bank (in liquidation) (1931) 61 M.L.J. 589 : L.R. 58 I.A. 323 : I.L.R. 59 Cal.
J.D. Jones And Co. Ltd. vs Ranjit Roy And Ors. on 22 November, 1926
In the present case it will be noted that the applicant was given possession of the items pledged to him. As and when other moveable properties come into his. possession, they also stand pledged to him. The security itself is expressly stated to be a continuing one. On default of payment when .demanded, he is given the right to have the properties in his possession sold by public or private auction and apply the net proceeds in liquidation of the amounts due to him. No doubt, the company is allowed to run its business, but it is only run by him as an agent under an irrevocable power-of-attorney. This scheme was devised apparently to ensure his possession of the properties delivered to him and also his continued, possession of all the moveable properties covered by the doqument. These-characteristic features are sufficient to negative the contention that this is a mere floating charge coming under Clause (f) of Section 109. As pointed out by Rankin, C.J., in Jones & Co. v. Ranjit Roy (1926) I.L.R. 54 Cal. 513, the element of possession, which is contemplated, by the deed and which was actually given, is an important factor, which stands in the way of the document being regarded as creating a purely equitable charge of a character coming fairly within the description of a, floating charge.
The Bank Of Baroda vs H.B. Shivdasani on 2 February, 1926
The decision in Bank of Baroda v. Shivdasani (1926) I.L.R. 50 Bom. 547 is also in point. In the present case, the possession of the moveable properties should be taken to be with the applicant in his capacity as pledge and not merely and solely as an agent of the company.. I am of opinion, therefore, that Clause (f) is not applicable and that the document does not require registration, as a floating charge.
1