Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the Company Court could direct the company to furnish a bank guarantee to secure a disputed claim after directing the creditor to seek remedy before the civil court.
Analysis: The disputed portion of the creditor's claim had already been declined for adjudication in the winding-up proceeding and relegated to the civil court. In that situation, the proper course for the creditor was to institute a suit and, if so advised, seek attachment before judgment under Order 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Company Court could not, while sending the disputed claim to the civil court, simultaneously secure that claim by requiring the company to furnish a bank guarantee, as that would amount to dealing with the disputed claim in a manner beyond its jurisdiction.
Conclusion: The direction requiring the company to furnish a bank guarantee for the disputed claim was unsustainable and was set aside. The order was modified accordingly, while the admitted claim remained unaffected.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a disputed monetary claim is relegated to the civil court, the court cannot simultaneously secure that disputed claim by directing the opposite party to furnish a bank guarantee; relief analogous to attachment before judgment must be sought in the civil suit under the applicable procedural law.