https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768541 NCLAT Principal Bench dismissed the appeal by a banking institution against rejection of its Section 95 application. The court held that a demand notice under Rule 7(1) cannot be treated as guarantee invocation notice. The bank failed to satisfy mandatory prerequisites for filing the application, as guarantor default only arises after proper guarantee invocation per the deed terms. The court emphasized that guarantor liability must be determined strictly according to guarantee deed provisions, and default occurs only when demand notice is issued as contractually contemplated. The Section 95 application was ruled non-maintainable due to improper guarantee invocation. en-us Fri, 28 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Apr 2025 07:42:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768541 NCLAT Principal Bench dismissed the appeal by a banking institution against rejection of its Section 95 application. The court held that a demand notice under Rule 7(1) cannot be treated as guarantee invocation notice. The bank failed to satisfy mandatory prerequisites for filing the application, as guarantor default only arises after proper guarantee invocation per the deed terms. The court emphasized that guarantor liability must be determined strictly according to guarantee deed provisions, and default occurs only when demand notice is issued as contractually contemplated. The Section 95 application was ruled non-maintainable due to improper guarantee invocation. Case-Laws IBC Fri, 28 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768541