<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2022 (1) TMI 1073 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417608</link>
    <description>A Section 7 IBC application is within limitation where a written communication acknowledges liability and extends time under Section 18 of the Limitation Act; here, the corporate debtor&#039;s 27.09.2017 reply admitting non-payment and seeking that insolvency action not be initiated saved the filing from being time-barred. A corporate guarantee is an independent, demand-based obligation, and the guarantor remains liable unless the contract provides otherwise; invocation of the guarantee and the deed terms did not show discharge under Sections 135 or 139 of the Contract Act. The guarantor could therefore be proceeded against, and the insolvency admission order remained undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Jan 2022 09:01:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=668374" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (1) TMI 1073 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417608</link>
      <description>A Section 7 IBC application is within limitation where a written communication acknowledges liability and extends time under Section 18 of the Limitation Act; here, the corporate debtor&#039;s 27.09.2017 reply admitting non-payment and seeking that insolvency action not be initiated saved the filing from being time-barred. A corporate guarantee is an independent, demand-based obligation, and the guarantor remains liable unless the contract provides otherwise; invocation of the guarantee and the deed terms did not show discharge under Sections 135 or 139 of the Contract Act. The guarantor could therefore be proceeded against, and the insolvency admission order remained undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Insolvency and Bankruptcy</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417608</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>