<?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>Appeal dismissed; Section 7 IBC petition held admissible as guarantee and liability remained operative despite revised sanction</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92482</link>
    <description>NCLAT dismisses the appeal and upholds the impugned order in a Section 7 IBC proceeding, finding the financial creditor&#039;s application admissible. The tribunal held that the corporate debtor&#039;s contention of discharge pursuant to a revised sanction dated 18.11.2017 is unsustainable because all existing terms, including the guarantee clause, remained operative. No evidence establishes that the financial creditor discharged the corporate debtor&#039;s contingent liability as guarantor; a letter from the principal borrower seeking release of the guarantee post-renewal evidenced continuance rather than discharge. No infirmity was shown in the impugned order; appeal dismissed without any order as to costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 13 Sep 2025 08:47:17 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Sep 2025 08:47:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=850251" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Appeal dismissed; Section 7 IBC petition held admissible as guarantee and liability remained operative despite revised sanction</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92482</link>
      <description>NCLAT dismisses the appeal and upholds the impugned order in a Section 7 IBC proceeding, finding the financial creditor&#039;s application admissible. The tribunal held that the corporate debtor&#039;s contention of discharge pursuant to a revised sanction dated 18.11.2017 is unsustainable because all existing terms, including the guarantee clause, remained operative. No evidence establishes that the financial creditor discharged the corporate debtor&#039;s contingent liability as guarantor; a letter from the principal borrower seeking release of the guarantee post-renewal evidenced continuance rather than discharge. No infirmity was shown in the impugned order; appeal dismissed without any order as to costs.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 13 Sep 2025 08:47:17 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92482</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>