https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274794 The High Court held that the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) did not have jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's suit as it was not a bank or financial institution under the RDB Act, 1993. The Court found the security held by the Plaintiff to be adequate, rejected the argument on insufficiency of stamp duty on Deeds of Guarantee, and ruled that the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC, 2016 does not extend to guarantors unless insolvency proceedings are initiated against them. The Defendants were granted leave to contest the suit upon depositing a specified amount within twelve weeks. Failure to comply would result in the Plaintiff being entitled to apply for an ex-parte decree. en-us Tue, 28 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 04 Sep 2018 07:19:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274794 The High Court held that the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) did not have jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's suit as it was not a bank or financial institution under the RDB Act, 1993. The Court found the security held by the Plaintiff to be adequate, rejected the argument on insufficiency of stamp duty on Deeds of Guarantee, and ruled that the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC, 2016 does not extend to guarantors unless insolvency proceedings are initiated against them. The Defendants were granted leave to contest the suit upon depositing a specified amount within twelve weeks. Failure to comply would result in the Plaintiff being entitled to apply for an ex-parte decree. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 28 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274794