<?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 (2) TMI 1494 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459568</link>
    <description>A personal guarantee expressly made effective only on full implementation of the sanctioned corporate debt restructuring package was held unenforceable because the stated condition precedent was never satisfied. The guarantee deed required the CDR package to be implemented in full and signed by all lenders in accordance with the letter of approval, but the corporate debtor exited the CDR mechanism after failure. As the guarantee never became operative, the petition founded on that guarantee could not be sustained, and limitation was not examined further. The proceeding was dismissed for absence of the foundational contractual basis to invoke the guarantee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 21 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Dec 2024 19:04:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=783427" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (2) TMI 1494 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459568</link>
      <description>A personal guarantee expressly made effective only on full implementation of the sanctioned corporate debt restructuring package was held unenforceable because the stated condition precedent was never satisfied. The guarantee deed required the CDR package to be implemented in full and signed by all lenders in accordance with the letter of approval, but the corporate debtor exited the CDR mechanism after failure. As the guarantee never became operative, the petition founded on that guarantee could not be sustained, and limitation was not examined further. The proceeding was dismissed for absence of the foundational contractual basis to invoke the guarantee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 21 Feb 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459568</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>