<?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>2025 (5) TMI 861 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI - LB</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770589</link>
    <description>A tribunal may rectify an earlier order to correct an accidental clerical or typographical error under its rectification and inherent powers, but it cannot reopen the merits under the guise of correction. The tribunal found that the word &quot;GRANTED&quot; had been inserted inadvertently, as the pleadings, hearing notes and stakeholder minutes did not support approval of assignment or extinguishment of personal guarantees. The correction to &quot;NOT GRANTED&quot; was therefore treated as a permissible rectification, not a review. It also noted that a guarantor&#039;s liability remains unaffected by liquidation of the principal debtor. The challenge to the rectification failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 09 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 May 2025 07:48:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=821591" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (5) TMI 861 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI - LB</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770589</link>
      <description>A tribunal may rectify an earlier order to correct an accidental clerical or typographical error under its rectification and inherent powers, but it cannot reopen the merits under the guise of correction. The tribunal found that the word &quot;GRANTED&quot; had been inserted inadvertently, as the pleadings, hearing notes and stakeholder minutes did not support approval of assignment or extinguishment of personal guarantees. The correction to &quot;NOT GRANTED&quot; was therefore treated as a permissible rectification, not a review. It also noted that a guarantor&#039;s liability remains unaffected by liquidation of the principal debtor. The challenge to the rectification failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770589</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>