Service of notice and contractual debt acknowledgment preserved insolvency admission against a corporate guarantor despite limitation and natural just...
Original works exemption excludes standalone boulder transportation, leaving subcontracted railway-project transport services subject to service tax l...
Annual production capacity determinations excluding stenter galleries support refunds for unconstitutional excise levies without an unjust-enrichment ...
Vicarious liability for cheque dishonour requires specific allegations of responsibility and cheque signatory; generic director allegations cannot sus...
IT Resilience Index requires market infrastructure institutions to automate resilience scoring, early warnings, and continuous service-delivery monito...
Insolvency and BankruptcyAugust 1, 2024Case LawsHC
Plaintiff contended defendants have no real prospect of successfully defending suit claim. Court held limitation issue raised by defendants requires further examination and cannot be decided in Interlocutory Application as plea cannot be held moonshine. First defendant defaulted on Rs.70,00,000 payment to plaintiff under Memorandum of Compromise. Cheque issued by first defendant got dishonoured. Plaintiff contends no necessity to withdraw suit per Memorandum since right to restore suit on breach. Defendants 2 to 4, being directors of first defendant company, not parties to contracts including construction contract and Memorandum of Compromise. Their liability can be adjudicated only after trial. First defendant made out probable case for defending suit on ground of limitation as amendment applications filed beyond three years from Memorandum date. Court directed first defendant to deposit Rs.70,00,000 within two weeks, failing which summary judgment for the amount in plaintiff's favour. Application against defendants 2 to 4 dismissed as suit claim against them to be adjudicated after trial.
Plaintiff contended defendants have no real prospect of successfully defending suit claim. Court held limitation issue raised by defendants requires further examination and cannot be decided in Interlocutory Application as plea cannot be held moonshine. First defendant defaulted on Rs.70,00,000 payment to plaintiff under Memorandum of Compromise. Cheque issued by first defendant got dishonoured. Plaintiff contends no necessity to withdraw suit per Memorandum since right to restore suit on breach. Defendants 2 to 4, being directors of first defendant company, not parties to contracts including construction contract and Memorandum of Compromise. Their liability can be adjudicated only after trial. First defendant made out probable case for defending suit on ground of limitation as amendment applications filed beyond three years from Memorandum date. Court directed first defendant to deposit Rs.70,00,000 within two weeks, failing which summary judgment for the amount in plaintiff's favour. Application against defendants 2 to 4 dismissed as suit claim against them to be adjudicated after trial.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
