https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198308 After the 1978 amendment to the Presidency-Towns Insolvency Act, grounds for setting aside an insolvency notice were confined to those expressly stated in section 9(5), and the Court refused to recognise additional objections based on alleged security held by the creditors or on equitable considerations. It held that the creditors were not secured creditors in relation to the judgment debtors merely because security existed with the principal debtor or a third party, so that did not bar the insolvency notice. The Court also rejected the objection that the notice was invalid as a composite notice, treating it as consistent with a single decree arising from a common loan transaction. en-us Fri, 18 Sep 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Jan 2018 11:36:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198308 After the 1978 amendment to the Presidency-Towns Insolvency Act, grounds for setting aside an insolvency notice were confined to those expressly stated in section 9(5), and the Court refused to recognise additional objections based on alleged security held by the creditors or on equitable considerations. It held that the creditors were not secured creditors in relation to the judgment debtors merely because security existed with the principal debtor or a third party, so that did not bar the insolvency notice. The Court also rejected the objection that the notice was invalid as a composite notice, treating it as consistent with a single decree arising from a common loan transaction. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 18 Sep 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198308