https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=451023 A promoter's undertaking to infuse funds into a borrower, coupled with security over immovable property, was held not to be a contract of guarantee under Section 126 of the Indian Contract Act because it did not amount to an express promise to discharge the borrower's debt on default. The surrounding documents, including the lender's letter, information memorandum and assignment deed, supported the view that no corporate guarantee was intended. The approved resolution plan discharged the corporate debtor, but preserved creditor rights against third parties; therefore, claims against the promoter or other preserved third-party obligors were not extinguished by the plan. en-us Wed, 24 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Mar 2024 08:40:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=451023 A promoter's undertaking to infuse funds into a borrower, coupled with security over immovable property, was held not to be a contract of guarantee under Section 126 of the Indian Contract Act because it did not amount to an express promise to discharge the borrower's debt on default. The surrounding documents, including the lender's letter, information memorandum and assignment deed, supported the view that no corporate guarantee was intended. The approved resolution plan discharged the corporate debtor, but preserved creditor rights against third parties; therefore, claims against the promoter or other preserved third-party obligors were not extinguished by the plan. Case-Laws Insolvency and Bankruptcy Wed, 24 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=451023