https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458307 Pendency of a personal guarantor insolvency application under Section 94(1) and the resulting interim moratorium under Section 96 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code did not require suspension of Section 138 cheque dishonour proceedings against the natural person liable on a separate personal liability. The Court applied the settled principle that the moratorium protects only the person or entity covered by it and does not extinguish personal penal liability in cheque dishonour cases. Finding that the complaint was founded on separate loan and mortgage documentation and that no legal infirmity existed in the refusal to stay the criminal case, the request for stay was rejected and the refusal to stay was upheld. en-us Wed, 06 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 20 Oct 2024 17:28:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458307 Pendency of a personal guarantor insolvency application under Section 94(1) and the resulting interim moratorium under Section 96 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code did not require suspension of Section 138 cheque dishonour proceedings against the natural person liable on a separate personal liability. The Court applied the settled principle that the moratorium protects only the person or entity covered by it and does not extinguish personal penal liability in cheque dishonour cases. Finding that the complaint was founded on separate loan and mortgage documentation and that no legal infirmity existed in the refusal to stay the criminal case, the request for stay was rejected and the refusal to stay was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 06 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458307