Customs valuation and import permissibility conflict resolved: accepted enhancement of transaction value removes liability for confiscation and penalt...
Attachment and proclamation of sale of immovable property: limitation treated from financial year end; proclamation held within period, petition dismi...
Second Schedule attachment and validity of a post-notice mortgage: TRO cannot declare mortgage void ab initio; sale and appropriation allowed thereaft...
Page of 4817
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
6601 to 6620 of 96333 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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
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.