https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442430 A money recovery suit on deeds of guarantee was held to continue despite the defendants being adjudged insolvent during the pendency of the proceedings, because the claim did not concern any property of the insolvent and the official assignee was not a necessary party. In a summary suit, the defence to the summons for judgment disclosed no substantial or triable issue, as liability under the settlement and guarantees was admitted and the objections were found frivolous. Leave to defend was therefore refused and judgment followed forthwith in favour of the plaintiff, with costs and execution directions. en-us Tue, 29 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 Sep 2023 16:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442430 A money recovery suit on deeds of guarantee was held to continue despite the defendants being adjudged insolvent during the pendency of the proceedings, because the claim did not concern any property of the insolvent and the official assignee was not a necessary party. In a summary suit, the defence to the summons for judgment disclosed no substantial or triable issue, as liability under the settlement and guarantees was admitted and the objections were found frivolous. Leave to defend was therefore refused and judgment followed forthwith in favour of the plaintiff, with costs and execution directions. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 29 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442430