Form 26AS evidence requires successor-entity accounting verification after business transfer, while invoice-supported related-party advertising expend...
Money-laundering judgment timing requires awaiting the scheduled-offence decision despite continuation of the underlying trial where outcomes directly...
Accredited investor eligibility expands through securities-market exposure, while alternative investment fund disputes require prescribed resolution a...
Page of 4916
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
41 to 60 of 98302 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.