Provisional attachment of properties under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) would in any case not violate the primary objectives of Section 14 of the IBC – Rajiv Chakraborty Resolution Professional of EIEL Vs. Directorate of Enforcement – Delhi High Court

Landmark judgment on provisional attachment under PMLA vs IBC.

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