Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.34 seconds)Section 109 in Indian Companies Act, 1913 [Entire Act]
Section 93 in Indian Companies Act, 1913 [Entire Act]
Indian Companies Act, 1913
The Bank Of Baroda vs H.B. Shivdasani on 2 February, 1926
19. The result is, therefore, that although in this case the security may not be in the fullest sense a specific security, it is also not entitled to be described as coming within the proper definition of a floating security. It is possible to hold that anything may be regarded as a floating security until the full rights of the mortgagee settle or fasten on or bind the subject-matter finally but it seems to me that in a case of this character the element of possession which is contemplated by this deed, and which, according to the evidence was actually given at the time prevents our holding that we have before us a purely equitable charge of a character coming fairly within the description of a floating charge. The case of the Bank of Baroda Ltd. v. H.B. Shivdasani , was, I think, a stronger case in favour of the mortgagee than the present case is on the facts. It will be seen that the security in that case was taken to put a real restriction upon the business of the mortgagors. The present application was brought by the present respondents not upon any allegation that the document according to its true construction was one thing and the real intention of the parties was another but merely on the footing that the document itself disclosed an intention to grant a floating charge. In my judgment, the case before us is not an equitable charge in so far as the assets have been handed over to the possession of the mortgagee. It is quite true that future moveables can only be assigned in equity but here no charge attached to any articles until they were brought upon the premises and put into possession of the mortgagee. Prior to that there was a mere promise or covenant to charge which could no doubt in a proper case have been specifically enforced.
1