<?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>Clause 33 limits principal guarantee to Rs.25 crore but guarantor remains liable for default interest beyond Rs.25 crore</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92305</link>
    <description>The NCLAT allowed the appeal and set aside the Adjudicating Authority&#039;s finding that Clause 33 capped the guarantor&#039;s entire liability at Rs.25 crore. The Tribunal held that Clause 33, interpreted by its plain contractual terms, limits only the principal guarantee quantum to Rs.25 crore; the guarantor remains separately liable for default interest arising from delayed discharge of guarantee obligations. The appellant&#039;s claim exceeding Rs.25 crore was not held to contravene Clause 33, and the Adjudicating Authority erred in conflating discharge of the principal borrower&#039;s liability with the guarantor&#039;s obligation to pay default interest. The impugned directions are quashed and the appeal is allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Sep 2025 13:37:08 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Sep 2025 13:37:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=848861" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Clause 33 limits principal guarantee to Rs.25 crore but guarantor remains liable for default interest beyond Rs.25 crore</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92305</link>
      <description>The NCLAT allowed the appeal and set aside the Adjudicating Authority&#039;s finding that Clause 33 capped the guarantor&#039;s entire liability at Rs.25 crore. The Tribunal held that Clause 33, interpreted by its plain contractual terms, limits only the principal guarantee quantum to Rs.25 crore; the guarantor remains separately liable for default interest arising from delayed discharge of guarantee obligations. The appellant&#039;s claim exceeding Rs.25 crore was not held to contravene Clause 33, and the Adjudicating Authority erred in conflating discharge of the principal borrower&#039;s liability with the guarantor&#039;s obligation to pay default interest. The impugned directions are quashed and the appeal is allowed.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Sep 2025 13:37:08 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92305</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>