https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442906 The court rejected the appellant's challenge to the judgment denying the winding up of the respondent company based on the validity of the bank guarantee. It was observed that the bank guarantee did not specifically refer to the loan in question, leading to suspicions about its validity. The court also found that the respondent's admissions of liability did not specifically relate to the bank guarantee in dispute. As the respondent presented a bona fide and substantial defense, the court upheld the decision to not wind up the company. Allegations of malicious prosecution and collusion were not considered, and the appeal was dismissed with parties to bear their own costs. en-us Fri, 01 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Sep 2023 10:19:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442906 The court rejected the appellant's challenge to the judgment denying the winding up of the respondent company based on the validity of the bank guarantee. It was observed that the bank guarantee did not specifically refer to the loan in question, leading to suspicions about its validity. The court also found that the respondent's admissions of liability did not specifically relate to the bank guarantee in dispute. As the respondent presented a bona fide and substantial defense, the court upheld the decision to not wind up the company. Allegations of malicious prosecution and collusion were not considered, and the appeal was dismissed with parties to bear their own costs. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 01 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442906