Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + SC Companies Law - 2004 (4) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2004 (4) TMI 328 - SC - Companies LawWhether suit is not maintainable as no leave has been obtained under section 446 of the Companies Act? Whether the suit is barred by time? Whether defendant Nos. 2 to 5 are not liable for the suit amount because the management of forest lease was handed over to defendant Nos. 1 to 6 at the instance of the petitioner-bank? Whether the petitioner is entitled to any decree against respondent NO.1? Held that:- Appeal allowed. The bank had pleaded a form of promissory estoppel in the plaint. Neither the single judge nor the Division Bench considered this plea nor whether such a plea was maintainable in law or established in fact. The opinion of the Division Bench that this "agreements/assurances/guarantees" as claimed by the respondent-bank which was alleged to have been entered into between respondent-bank, respondent No. 2 and the appellant State was a continuation of the agreement which was between the appellant State and the respondent-bank alone is in any event unsustainable. From this major premise, by a leap of faith and not of logic, the Division Bench came to the wholly fallacious conclusion that the provisions of section 122 did not apply.
|