CA Foundation |Business Laws |Bailment & Pledge |Sep'24/Jan'25 | Revision| CA CS Yogita Harjani
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 เม.ย. 2022
- #IndigoLearn #CA #Law #Revision
Download our app for Free MCQs, Free Notes, Free videos and amazing online classes for CA Foundation, CA Inter & CA Final
bit.ly/IL1FIN
For courses / modules for CA Foundation, CA Inter, CA IPCC, CA Final, CMA, CPA, CS please visit www.indigolearn.com or reach out to us at + 91 9640 11111 0
tq u so much mam excellently understood
Thank you so much madam
This may 23 my exams going on ,it's very helpful 👍
Mam can I write this same way in my exam?
Mam can also uploaded sales of goods act 1930
Mam also uploaded indemnity
ma'am pls upload NI ACT 1881
hmm
Mam please upload partnership act
Thank you so much Indigolearn for providing the whole Fastrack course for free on TH-cam. Helps a lot in revising frm the module. Quality of the lecs is just amazing. Best Law teacher @CA CS Yogita Harjani
Sir, plz upload Imp chapters from Company law also
Hi, they are already there - few are left, will be uploaded soon. Check the playlist here - do share with your friends. th-cam.com/play/PLZxYccUQ8mBT4rotz78HuWuyCxZuPnYLT.html
@@1FIN is there any playlist like this for P3 Costing if Yes Send me link please
Below question asked in icai January 2021 exam. as per the provision bank decision is valid but in icai suggest answer say invalid
Radheshyam borrowed a sum of ` 50,000 from a Bank on the security of gold on
1.07.2019 under an agreement which contains a clause that the bank shall have a right
of particular lien on the gold pledged with it. Radheshyam thereafter took an unsecured
loan of ` 20,000 from the same bank on 1.08.2019 for three months. On 30.09.2019 he
repaid entire secured loan of ` 50,000 and requested the bank to release the gold
pledged with it. The Bank decided to continue the lien on the gold until the unsecured
loan is fully repaid by Radheshyam. Decide whether the decision of the Bank is valid
within the provisions of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 ?
Bank's decision is valid as per section 171 and illustration mentioned in study material provided we mention the assumption that there is no contract to contrary. The provision says "in the absense of contract to the contrary, bank can retain security for general balance of account". Suggested answer might have taken the contrary assumption.
@@CACSYogitaHarjani thank you ma'am