https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456224 Jurisdiction under section 31(1)(aa) of the State Financial Corporations Act was sustained where the petition alleged that the company's registered office, sanction and disbursement of facilities, repayment obligations, and execution of guarantees all arose in Bombay, and the guarantee deed also conferred exclusive Bombay jurisdiction; the territorial objection was rejected. The guarantors' discharge defence failed because sale of the secured assets did not by itself extinguish their liability, enforcement against them did not require first proceeding against the principal debtor, and the waiver clauses in the guarantee remained effective; the guarantee stayed enforceable. Limitation ran from invocation of the guarantee, so the claim filed soon after invocation was within time. The agreed contractual interest, court-fee objection, and quantum challenge were also rejected. en-us Wed, 13 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 Jul 2024 10:50:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456224 Jurisdiction under section 31(1)(aa) of the State Financial Corporations Act was sustained where the petition alleged that the company's registered office, sanction and disbursement of facilities, repayment obligations, and execution of guarantees all arose in Bombay, and the guarantee deed also conferred exclusive Bombay jurisdiction; the territorial objection was rejected. The guarantors' discharge defence failed because sale of the secured assets did not by itself extinguish their liability, enforcement against them did not require first proceeding against the principal debtor, and the waiver clauses in the guarantee remained effective; the guarantee stayed enforceable. Limitation ran from invocation of the guarantee, so the claim filed soon after invocation was within time. The agreed contractual interest, court-fee objection, and quantum challenge were also rejected. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 13 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456224