https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775650 Insolvency proceedings against personal guarantors under Section 95 were treated as timely because the operative demand notice was served within the applicable limitation framework, the recovery certificate furnished a fresh cause of action, and the excluded Covid-19 period was considered under Article 137 of the Limitation Act. A prior dismissal for failure to prove service was characterised as a curable procedural defect rather than a requirement to issue a new Form B notice. Once the existing notice was served and acknowledged, the notice requirement under Section 95 read with Rule 7 of the 2019 Rules was satisfied, sustaining admission of the proceedings. en-us Thu, 24 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 29 Jul 2025 08:30:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775650 Insolvency proceedings against personal guarantors under Section 95 were treated as timely because the operative demand notice was served within the applicable limitation framework, the recovery certificate furnished a fresh cause of action, and the excluded Covid-19 period was considered under Article 137 of the Limitation Act. A prior dismissal for failure to prove service was characterised as a curable procedural defect rather than a requirement to issue a new Form B notice. Once the existing notice was served and acknowledged, the notice requirement under Section 95 read with Rule 7 of the 2019 Rules was satisfied, sustaining admission of the proceedings. Case-Laws IBC Thu, 24 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775650