M/s. Indus Cityscapes Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Karismaa Foundations Pvt. Ltd. – High Court of Madras

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

Whether applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act is excluded to proceedings under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996? – Consolidated Engineering Enterprises Vs. The Principal Secretary (Irrigation Department) and Ors. – Supreme Court of India

Arbitration-Supreme Court, Case Laws-Negotiable Instruments Act [NI], Case Laws-RERA-Supreme Court, Case Laws-SARFAESI-Supreme Court, CCA-Commercial Courts Act Case Laws (High Court &Supreme Court), Companies Act-Supreme Court, CP- Supreme Court Case Laws, IBC-Case Laws-Supreme Court, Indian International Arbitration Centre Act Case Laws(High Court &Supreme Court)
Scroll to Top