https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305166 The Tribunal held that the application under Section 95 of the IBC by the Applicant Bank was not maintainable. It emphasized that the Security Trustee was the designated entity to enforce the personal guarantee, and the Applicant Bank could not act in place of the Security Trustee without obtaining formal consent from all co-lenders. Consequently, the application was dismissed with no order as to costs, and the file was consigned to records. en-us Thu, 05 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 21 Nov 2022 04:45:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305166 The Tribunal held that the application under Section 95 of the IBC by the Applicant Bank was not maintainable. It emphasized that the Security Trustee was the designated entity to enforce the personal guarantee, and the Applicant Bank could not act in place of the Security Trustee without obtaining formal consent from all co-lenders. Consequently, the application was dismissed with no order as to costs, and the file was consigned to records. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Thu, 05 May 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305166