<?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>2012 (5) TMI 155 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213201</link>
    <description>A corporate guarantee and promissory notes were held binding on the company where the board resolution was broadly worded, authority had been held out to the signatory, and no convincing material showed undisclosed internal limits. Alleged contravention of foreign exchange law did not render the guarantee void or unenforceable, because FEMA does not itself declare such transactions void and breach attracts penal consequences instead. An objection to insufficient stamping was treated as technical, as the documents could be considered on payment of penalty, so stamping did not prevent reliance on them. The order appointing the provisional liquidator was upheld and the appeal failed with costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 May 2012 08:56:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=186602" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (5) TMI 155 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213201</link>
      <description>A corporate guarantee and promissory notes were held binding on the company where the board resolution was broadly worded, authority had been held out to the signatory, and no convincing material showed undisclosed internal limits. Alleged contravention of foreign exchange law did not render the guarantee void or unenforceable, because FEMA does not itself declare such transactions void and breach attracts penal consequences instead. An objection to insufficient stamping was treated as technical, as the documents could be considered on payment of penalty, so stamping did not prevent reliance on them. The order appointing the provisional liquidator was upheld and the appeal failed with costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213201</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>