Profiteering in construction services for failure to pass input tax credit resulted in repayment exceeding the commensurate benefit and closure of pro...
The dominant issue was whether the applicant qualified as a financial creditor on the basis of an alleged corporate guarantee. The tribunal held that no valid and enforceable guarantee was proved because reliance on a master loan clause, absent a separate guarantee deed, prior invocation, or authorising board resolution, did not establish a binding guarantee or a financial debt under s. 5(8)(i) IBC; accordingly, the claim was rightly rejected. It further held that the claim was time-barred and could not be entertained after resolution plan approval, and that filing the same admitted debt in two CIRPs without safeguards against double recovery was impermissible duplication; hence the appeal was dismissed - NCLAT
The dominant issue was whether the applicant qualified as a financial creditor on the basis of an alleged corporate guarantee. The tribunal held that no valid and enforceable guarantee was proved because reliance on a master loan clause, absent a separate guarantee deed, prior invocation, or authorising board resolution, did not establish a binding guarantee or a financial debt under s. 5(8)(i) IBC; accordingly, the claim was rightly rejected. It further held that the claim was time-barred and could not be entertained after resolution plan approval, and that filing the same admitted debt in two CIRPs without safeguards against double recovery was impermissible duplication; hence the appeal was dismissed - NCLAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4816 
Join Channel 
