https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106006 A guarantor impleaded as a defendant in bank recovery suits is entitled to notice and a hearing before leave under section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 is granted or revoked, because Rule 117 requires service on parties to the suit and denial of notice infringes a statutory right. The Company Court's jurisdiction is not automatically ousted by the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993; leave under section 446 must be decided case by case, having regard to secured creditors, workmen and the special debt-recovery regime. Binding directions of the Supreme Court in the winding-up proceedings also remain relevant and cannot be ignored on an assumption of automatic transfer. en-us Fri, 24 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Mar 2012 12:55:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106006 A guarantor impleaded as a defendant in bank recovery suits is entitled to notice and a hearing before leave under section 446 of the Companies Act, 1956 is granted or revoked, because Rule 117 requires service on parties to the suit and denial of notice infringes a statutory right. The Company Court's jurisdiction is not automatically ousted by the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993; leave under section 446 must be decided case by case, having regard to secured creditors, workmen and the special debt-recovery regime. Binding directions of the Supreme Court in the winding-up proceedings also remain relevant and cannot be ignored on an assumption of automatic transfer. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 24 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=106006