https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355933 The tribunal dismissed the application, ruling that the Corporate Debtor could not be considered a defaulter under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The suspension of the loan agreements by the Economic Court of Dushanbe meant the principal debtor was not in default, thus the Corporate Debtor's liability as a guarantor did not arise. The tribunal emphasized Section 128 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and the terms of the Deed of Guarantee, which linked the guarantor's liability to the default of the principal debtor. en-us Thu, 11 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 21 Feb 2018 06:30:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355933 The tribunal dismissed the application, ruling that the Corporate Debtor could not be considered a defaulter under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The suspension of the loan agreements by the Economic Court of Dushanbe meant the principal debtor was not in default, thus the Corporate Debtor's liability as a guarantor did not arise. The tribunal emphasized Section 128 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and the terms of the Deed of Guarantee, which linked the guarantor's liability to the default of the principal debtor. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Thu, 11 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355933