<?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>2006 (4) TMI 540 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193710</link>
    <description>The SC allowed the appeal, overturning the HC and trial court judgments. It held that the suit was not barred by limitation, as the limitation period commenced from the date of demand and refusal by the guarantors. The suit was decreed in favor of the Bank, establishing guarantors&#039; liability as co-extensive with the principal debtor.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Mar 2024 15:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=485573" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (4) TMI 540 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193710</link>
      <description>The SC allowed the appeal, overturning the HC and trial court judgments. It held that the suit was not barred by limitation, as the limitation period commenced from the date of demand and refusal by the guarantors. The suit was decreed in favor of the Bank, establishing guarantors&#039; liability as co-extensive with the principal debtor.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Apr 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193710</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>