Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Personal guarantors disputed admission of an insolvency application under s.95 IBC by claiming full repayment, faulty verification in the s.99 report, pendency of DRT recovery proceedings, and defective notice. Guarantor liability was held to continue for the unpaid balance because an approved resolution plan binds stakeholders under s.31 IBC and, absent an express discharge, guarantors remain co-extensively liable under s.128 Contract Act; no no-dues/settlement/novation or other extinguishment document was proved, so the plea of discharge failed. Pendency of DRT proceedings was held not to bar s.95 action, so admission was upheld. Alleged notice/verification lapses caused no prejudice where debt and default stood established, so the appeals were dismissed. - NCLAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.