High Court cannot have the luxury to entertain the petition when the petitioner has not only alternate but equally efficacious remedy in law – Anthony Raphael Kallarakkal Vs. National Company Law Tribunal,  Mumbai Bench & ors. – Bombay High Court

Login with GoogleOR Username Password Remember Me     Forgot Password In case you've already logged in, click here […]

Related Posts:

When a Court has to decide whether a person has really guaranteed the due performance of the contract by the principal debtor, all the circumstances concerning the transaction will have to be necessarily considered. Court cannot adopt a hyper technical attitude that the guarantor has not signed the agreement and so he cannot be saddled with the liability-P.J. Rajappan Vs. Associated Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. & another – Kerala High Court

Case Laws-SARFAESI-High Courts, IBC-Case Laws-High Courts, Indian Contract Act-Case Laws

A scheme sanctioned by the Court u/s 391 & 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 was binding on the creditors whether such creditors assented to it or not. A contract between the creditor and the principal debtor by which the creditor compounds with the principal debtor, discharges the surety-Shri Kundanmal Dabriwala Vs. Haryana Financial Corporation and another -Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Laws-SARFAESI-High Courts, Companies Act-High Courts, IBC-Case Laws-High Courts, Indian Contract Act-Case Laws
Scroll to Top