<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2001 (2) TMI 919 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105327</link>
    <description>Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 did not bar a suit on dishonoured bills of exchange where the transaction was bill discounting and the discounted proceeds were paid to the drawer. The drawer remained liable under section 30 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and section 37 did not extend the statutory bar to the drawer&#039;s post-acceptance position. Protection under section 22 applies to enforcement of a guarantee in respect of a loan or advance granted to a sick industrial company, and no such loan or advance was shown here. The claim against the drawer was therefore maintainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Mar 2012 12:51:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=142365" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (2) TMI 919 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105327</link>
      <description>Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 did not bar a suit on dishonoured bills of exchange where the transaction was bill discounting and the discounted proceeds were paid to the drawer. The drawer remained liable under section 30 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and section 37 did not extend the statutory bar to the drawer&#039;s post-acceptance position. Protection under section 22 applies to enforcement of a guarantee in respect of a loan or advance granted to a sick industrial company, and no such loan or advance was shown here. The claim against the drawer was therefore maintainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105327</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>