Concessional penalty for search-disclosed unreconciled jewellery applies where substantive disclosure conditions are met despite omission from origina...
The NCLAT allowed the appeal and set aside the Adjudicating Authority's finding that Clause 33 capped the guarantor's entire liability at Rs.25 crore. The Tribunal held that Clause 33, interpreted by its plain contractual terms, limits only the principal guarantee quantum to Rs.25 crore; the guarantor remains separately liable for default interest arising from delayed discharge of guarantee obligations. The appellant's claim exceeding Rs.25 crore was not held to contravene Clause 33, and the Adjudicating Authority erred in conflating discharge of the principal borrower's liability with the guarantor's obligation to pay default interest. The impugned directions are quashed and the appeal is allowed.
The NCLAT allowed the appeal and set aside the Adjudicating Authority's finding that Clause 33 capped the guarantor's entire liability at Rs.25 crore. The Tribunal held that Clause 33, interpreted by its plain contractual terms, limits only the principal guarantee quantum to Rs.25 crore; the guarantor remains separately liable for default interest arising from delayed discharge of guarantee obligations. The appellant's claim exceeding Rs.25 crore was not held to contravene Clause 33, and the Adjudicating Authority erred in conflating discharge of the principal borrower's liability with the guarantor's obligation to pay default interest. The impugned directions are quashed and the appeal is allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
