<?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>2018 (11) TMI 1047 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370704</link>
    <description>A restructuring agreement and related sanction documents were treated as controlling the parties&#039; rights, so a later RBI circular could not extinguish contractual claims already crystallised under the earlier arrangement. The restructuring materials were read as approving only the additional working capital expressly sanctioned; any further funding was discretionary, not mandatory, and consultant projections did not create a binding promise. Relief to stop lenders from pursuing recovery, including proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and SARFAESI, was not available because repayment obligations remained enforceable and statutory remedies could not be blocked through writ-based specific performance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 Nov 2018 11:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=543106" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (11) TMI 1047 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370704</link>
      <description>A restructuring agreement and related sanction documents were treated as controlling the parties&#039; rights, so a later RBI circular could not extinguish contractual claims already crystallised under the earlier arrangement. The restructuring materials were read as approving only the additional working capital expressly sanctioned; any further funding was discretionary, not mandatory, and consultant projections did not create a binding promise. Relief to stop lenders from pursuing recovery, including proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and SARFAESI, was not available because repayment obligations remained enforceable and statutory remedies could not be blocked through writ-based specific performance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370704</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>