9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (11) TMI 401X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uarantors of defendant No. 1-company (now L.Rs.) have challenged the interlocutory order (Exh. 16) passed in Special Civil Suit No. 1271/1990, thereby rejected an application under section 446(1) and (3) of the Companies Act, 1956 as admittedly, defendant No. 1-company has gone in liquidation and a liquidator has been appointed and thereby pray that Suit cannot be proceeded and be transferred acco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eply is filed by respondent No. 1-Bank. In the said reply, it is pointed out that although an Official Liquidator has been appointed no relief has been sought against the firm and the relief has been sought only against defendant Nos. 2 and 3 as the guarantors and hence the provision of section 446(1) and 446(3) are not applicable. 6. On 19-12-1997, the learned IVth Joint Civil Judge, Senior D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ebt outstanding from the guarantors who are jointly and severally liable even in the absence of principal debtors, I am also of the view that considering the nature of the suit and the provisions under the Companies Act and the Indian Contract Act, the rejection of application need no interference as the order is within the frame work of law and the record. Merely because the company is in liquida ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
