https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89054 NCLAT upheld the Respondent Bank's right to invoke a continuing personal guarantee against the Appellant despite auction proceedings. The Tribunal determined that the guarantee agreement remained legally binding, with clauses explicitly stating the guarantee's continuity irrespective of principal borrower's discharge or legal operations. Explanation (b) of Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was interpreted to exclude court-ordered monetary recoveries from debt calculations. Consequently, the Appellant's arguments challenging the guarantee's enforceability were rejected, and the appeal was dismissed as meritless, affirming the bank's absolute right to pursue recovery through the personal guarantee. en-us Wed, 04 Jun 2025 08:40:39 +0530 Wed, 04 Jun 2025 08:40:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89054 NCLAT upheld the Respondent Bank's right to invoke a continuing personal guarantee against the Appellant despite auction proceedings. The Tribunal determined that the guarantee agreement remained legally binding, with clauses explicitly stating the guarantee's continuity irrespective of principal borrower's discharge or legal operations. Explanation (b) of Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was interpreted to exclude court-ordered monetary recoveries from debt calculations. Consequently, the Appellant's arguments challenging the guarantee's enforceability were rejected, and the appeal was dismissed as meritless, affirming the bank's absolute right to pursue recovery through the personal guarantee. Highlights IBC Wed, 04 Jun 2025 08:40:39 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=89054