https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185235 The Gujarat High Court held that a winding-up petition remained maintainable despite the guarantee and underlying dealings being connected with England, because the jurisdiction clause preserved proceedings in any court of competent jurisdiction and the company's Gujarat registration conferred competence on the Company Court. It further rejected the defence that absence of Reserve Bank of India approval under FEMA made the guarantee unenforceable, treating procurement of any permission as the respondent's obligation and not a ground to evade liability. The Court also allowed reliance on the foreign judgment as prima facie support for the debt, and found the respondent's objections not to be a bona fide defence at the admission stage. en-us Wed, 26 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 04 Aug 2016 15:35:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185235 The Gujarat High Court held that a winding-up petition remained maintainable despite the guarantee and underlying dealings being connected with England, because the jurisdiction clause preserved proceedings in any court of competent jurisdiction and the company's Gujarat registration conferred competence on the Company Court. It further rejected the defence that absence of Reserve Bank of India approval under FEMA made the guarantee unenforceable, treating procurement of any permission as the respondent's obligation and not a ground to evade liability. The Court also allowed reliance on the foreign judgment as prima facie support for the debt, and found the respondent's objections not to be a bona fide defence at the admission stage. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 26 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=185235