<?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 (2) TMI 2000 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300664</link>
    <description>Following liquidation of the corporate debtor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, a secured creditor may still enforce its security against the personal properties of guarantors under the SARFAESI Act. The Court noted that a guarantor&#039;s liability remains co-extensive with that of the principal debtor, that the liquidation estate does not include the guarantors&#039; personal assets, and that the moratorium does not extend to a surety in a contract of guarantee. It therefore found no statutory bar to action against the guarantors merely because the corporate debtor&#039;s secured assets had been relinquished to the liquidator, and the challenge to the e-auction notice failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Feb 2022 07:31:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=670491" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (2) TMI 2000 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300664</link>
      <description>Following liquidation of the corporate debtor under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, a secured creditor may still enforce its security against the personal properties of guarantors under the SARFAESI Act. The Court noted that a guarantor&#039;s liability remains co-extensive with that of the principal debtor, that the liquidation estate does not include the guarantors&#039; personal assets, and that the moratorium does not extend to a surety in a contract of guarantee. It therefore found no statutory bar to action against the guarantors merely because the corporate debtor&#039;s secured assets had been relinquished to the liquidator, and the challenge to the e-auction notice failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300664</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>