https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99802 The court affirmed its jurisdiction to hear a suit against a guarantor, separate from a company under liquidation, for a special contribution under the Employees' State Insurance Act. The court rejected the argument that section 446 of the Companies Act precluded such proceedings against the guarantor. Emphasizing the distinction in liabilities, the court ruled that the guarantor could be sued independently, irrespective of the company's status. The court clarified that the guarantor's liability was unaffected by the company's discharge. The civil revision application challenging the trial court's jurisdiction was dismissed, upholding the trial court's decision. en-us Wed, 20 Jun 1979 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:56:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99802 The court affirmed its jurisdiction to hear a suit against a guarantor, separate from a company under liquidation, for a special contribution under the Employees' State Insurance Act. The court rejected the argument that section 446 of the Companies Act precluded such proceedings against the guarantor. Emphasizing the distinction in liabilities, the court ruled that the guarantor could be sued independently, irrespective of the company's status. The court clarified that the guarantor's liability was unaffected by the company's discharge. The civil revision application challenging the trial court's jurisdiction was dismissed, upholding the trial court's decision. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 20 Jun 1979 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=99802