PMLA anticipatory bail requires satisfaction of twin conditions, while predicate-offence protection does not extend to independent money-laundering pr...
School-affiliation charges remain taxable where not directly connected with examinations, while extended limitation requires proof of deliberate tax e...
Concessional penalty for search-disclosed unreconciled jewellery applies where substantive disclosure conditions are met despite omission from origina...
Page of 4826
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1 to 20 of 96510 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NCLAT held that the applications u/s 95 IBC filed by the creditor against the personal guarantors of the principal borrower were within limitation. The Tribunal noted two relevant dates: 27.06.2019 (recovery certificate) and 23.09.2019 (acceptance of OTS proposal by the borrower). The latter constituted an acknowledgment of debt under applicable limitation principles, thereby commencing a fresh three-year limitation period, further extended by exclusion of 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 pursuant to SC orders on Covid-19. Consequently, the application filed on 10.08.2024 was held timely. NCLAT also rejected the guarantors' contention that their guarantees had not been validly invoked, holding that the notice dated 29.11.2013 under Rule 7 was a statutory notice issued after invocation. Finding no merit in the grounds urged, NCLAT dismissed all appeals filed by the guarantors.
NCLAT held that the applications u/s 95 IBC filed by the creditor against the personal guarantors of the principal borrower were within limitation. The Tribunal noted two relevant dates: 27.06.2019 (recovery certificate) and 23.09.2019 (acceptance of OTS proposal by the borrower). The latter constituted an acknowledgment of debt under applicable limitation principles, thereby commencing a fresh three-year limitation period, further extended by exclusion of 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 pursuant to SC orders on Covid-19. Consequently, the application filed on 10.08.2024 was held timely. NCLAT also rejected the guarantors' contention that their guarantees had not been validly invoked, holding that the notice dated 29.11.2013 under Rule 7 was a statutory notice issued after invocation. Finding no merit in the grounds urged, NCLAT dismissed all appeals filed by the guarantors.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.