<?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>2024 (11) TMI 1287 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI - LB</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762301</link>
    <description>NCLAT dismissed appeal challenging exclusion of personal guarantors from Committee of Creditors. The tribunal held that under Section 5(8)(i) of IBC, guarantors cannot be considered financial creditors merely by providing guarantee unless actual liability has arisen and payment made in discharge of guarantee. Personal guarantors who had not made any payment to discharge their guarantee to the bank could not be treated as financial creditors of corporate debtor nor allocated voting shares in CIRP. The adjudicating authority&#039;s order excluding appellants from CoC was upheld as guarantors&#039; liability was only to the bank, not the corporate debtor.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 Nov 2024 12:25:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=779717" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (11) TMI 1287 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI - LB</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762301</link>
      <description>NCLAT dismissed appeal challenging exclusion of personal guarantors from Committee of Creditors. The tribunal held that under Section 5(8)(i) of IBC, guarantors cannot be considered financial creditors merely by providing guarantee unless actual liability has arisen and payment made in discharge of guarantee. Personal guarantors who had not made any payment to discharge their guarantee to the bank could not be treated as financial creditors of corporate debtor nor allocated voting shares in CIRP. The adjudicating authority&#039;s order excluding appellants from CoC was upheld as guarantors&#039; liability was only to the bank, not the corporate debtor.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762301</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>