<?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>2019 (11) TMI 901 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388652</link>
    <description>The Court set aside the DRAT&#039;s judgment and restored the DRT&#039;s decision, holding that the alleged guarantee deeds were invalid as the signatures did not match those of the directors. Novation occurred when new directors took over, discharging the former directors and guarantors. The Court found the limitation period inapplicable due to the novation. The change in management was accepted by the bank, leading to a novation of the original contract. The erstwhile directors were discharged from liabilities, and the new directors&#039; guarantees were upheld. The writ petitions by former directors were allowed, and the bank&#039;s petition was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Nov 2019 10:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=594725" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (11) TMI 901 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388652</link>
      <description>The Court set aside the DRAT&#039;s judgment and restored the DRT&#039;s decision, holding that the alleged guarantee deeds were invalid as the signatures did not match those of the directors. Novation occurred when new directors took over, discharging the former directors and guarantors. The Court found the limitation period inapplicable due to the novation. The change in management was accepted by the bank, leading to a novation of the original contract. The erstwhile directors were discharged from liabilities, and the new directors&#039; guarantees were upheld. The writ petitions by former directors were allowed, and the bank&#039;s petition was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388652</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>