https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104144 A summary suit was maintainable against the company because the board resolution, stamped receipt and undertaking together constituted a written contract for a liquidated demand, and the receipt was admissible. The guarantee was also duly stamped, but the claim for interest with quarterly rests was not clearly authorised by the written instrument, so the suit could not proceed as a summary suit against the guarantors on that footing; they were given unconditional leave to defend and the matter was relegated to the commercial cause procedure. The suit was not barred by section 446(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 because it was filed before appointment of the provisional liquidator. Delay in taking out summons for judgment did not by itself entitle the defendants to unconditional leave to defend. en-us Fri, 26 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 27 Feb 2012 18:45:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104144 A summary suit was maintainable against the company because the board resolution, stamped receipt and undertaking together constituted a written contract for a liquidated demand, and the receipt was admissible. The guarantee was also duly stamped, but the claim for interest with quarterly rests was not clearly authorised by the written instrument, so the suit could not proceed as a summary suit against the guarantors on that footing; they were given unconditional leave to defend and the matter was relegated to the commercial cause procedure. The suit was not barred by section 446(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 because it was filed before appointment of the provisional liquidator. Delay in taking out summons for judgment did not by itself entitle the defendants to unconditional leave to defend. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 26 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104144