https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111865 The court held that the second defendant (D2), as the managing director of the first defendant (D1), was jointly and severally liable for the suit claim based on his actions and commitments under the Memorandum of Understanding. The court rejected the argument of misjoinder of D2, stating he was a necessary party due to his individual actions. The trial court's judgment and decree in favor of the plaintiff were upheld, dismissing the appeal and allowing the respondent to withdraw the remaining suit amount with interest without providing security. en-us Wed, 25 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Dec 2014 09:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111865 The court held that the second defendant (D2), as the managing director of the first defendant (D1), was jointly and severally liable for the suit claim based on his actions and commitments under the Memorandum of Understanding. The court rejected the argument of misjoinder of D2, stating he was a necessary party due to his individual actions. The trial court's judgment and decree in favor of the plaintiff were upheld, dismissing the appeal and allowing the respondent to withdraw the remaining suit amount with interest without providing security. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 25 Jun 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111865