Admissibility of electronic evidence bars undervaluation demands where printouts, retracted statements and no cross-examination leave the case unprove...
Limitation in oppression and mismanagement proceedings: prior knowledge of removal and dilution barred the challenge, with valuation directions upheld...
Insolvency professional agency governance rules amended to add nominee directors, tighten independent director eligibility, and regulate managing dire...
Enforcement against a non-party security provider is permitted where the provider voluntarily issued a cheque as security for the disputed arbitrable liability; the court treated the undated cheque, corresponding to the tribunal claim, as a voluntary guaranty thereby exposing the issuer to enforcement of the foreign arbitral award and corrective award. The decision rejected a requirement to pierce the corporate veil because liability rested on the 2nd respondent's own undertaking; the 1st respondent's insolvency reinforced the necessity of enforcement against the security provider to prevent injustice. The appellate order allows enforcement jointly and severally against both respondents on the cheque basis.
Enforcement against a non-party security provider is permitted where the provider voluntarily issued a cheque as security for the disputed arbitrable liability; the court treated the undated cheque, corresponding to the tribunal claim, as a voluntary guaranty thereby exposing the issuer to enforcement of the foreign arbitral award and corrective award. The decision rejected a requirement to pierce the corporate veil because liability rested on the 2nd respondent's own undertaking; the 1st respondent's insolvency reinforced the necessity of enforcement against the security provider to prevent injustice. The appellate order allows enforcement jointly and severally against both respondents on the cheque basis.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
