https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777922 NCLAT (PB) allowed the appeal, holding the adjudicating authority erred in construing Clause 33 as capping the guarantor's entire liability at Rs.25 crore. The Tribunal found the contractual cap applied to the guaranteed principal only, while default interest due to the guarantor's failure to discharge obligations is a separate liability under the guarantee and may be added to the claim. The adjudicating authority's limitation of total liability to Rs.25 crore was set aside, and the adjudicator/Resolution Professional was held justified in admitting default interest over and above the Rs.25 crore cap. en-us Wed, 03 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 Sep 2025 13:37:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777922 NCLAT (PB) allowed the appeal, holding the adjudicating authority erred in construing Clause 33 as capping the guarantor's entire liability at Rs.25 crore. The Tribunal found the contractual cap applied to the guaranteed principal only, while default interest due to the guarantor's failure to discharge obligations is a separate liability under the guarantee and may be added to the claim. The adjudicating authority's limitation of total liability to Rs.25 crore was set aside, and the adjudicator/Resolution Professional was held justified in admitting default interest over and above the Rs.25 crore cap. Case-Laws IBC Wed, 03 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=777922