https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110823 A Company Court cannot require a company to furnish a bank guarantee for a disputed monetary claim after declining to adjudicate that claim in winding-up proceedings and relegating the creditor to the civil court. Once the dispute is sent to civil court, the creditor must pursue ordinary civil remedies, including any request for attachment before judgment under Order 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. A parallel direction securing the same disputed claim would exceed the Company Court's jurisdiction. The direction to furnish a bank guarantee was therefore unsustainable and was set aside, while the admitted claim remained unaffected. en-us Fri, 05 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 18 Apr 2012 17:31:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110823 A Company Court cannot require a company to furnish a bank guarantee for a disputed monetary claim after declining to adjudicate that claim in winding-up proceedings and relegating the creditor to the civil court. Once the dispute is sent to civil court, the creditor must pursue ordinary civil remedies, including any request for attachment before judgment under Order 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. A parallel direction securing the same disputed claim would exceed the Company Court's jurisdiction. The direction to furnish a bank guarantee was therefore unsustainable and was set aside, while the admitted claim remained unaffected. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 05 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110823