<?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>2009 (6) TMI 587 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114057</link>
    <description>The court dismissed the Writ Petition, upholding the first respondent&#039;s right to proceed against the company and Guarantors for recovery of dues without the need to exhaust steps against the company&#039;s properties first. The court emphasized the legality of the issue over the rights and liabilities among the Guarantors, citing specific provisions of the U.P. Act and clarifying that the precedent relied upon was not universally applicable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Nov 2014 11:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=151063" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (6) TMI 587 - HIGH COURT OF KERALA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114057</link>
      <description>The court dismissed the Writ Petition, upholding the first respondent&#039;s right to proceed against the company and Guarantors for recovery of dues without the need to exhaust steps against the company&#039;s properties first. The court emphasized the legality of the issue over the rights and liabilities among the Guarantors, citing specific provisions of the U.P. Act and clarifying that the precedent relied upon was not universally applicable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114057</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>