https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781982 A Section 95 IBC application was held to be within limitation where default crystallised on the demand-cum-recall notice date, later balance-sheet acknowledgments of liability extended limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, and the Supreme Court's exclusion orders covered 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022. Those acknowledgments were treated as legally effective against the personal guarantor because the guarantee deed made the borrower's acknowledgment binding on the guarantor and the guarantor's liability was co-extensive with the principal debtor under Section 128 of the Contract Act. A demand-cum-recall notice addressed to the guarantors and demanding payment within seven days was held to validly invoke the personal guarantee; the dismissal of the Section 95 petition was set aside. en-us Fri, 17 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Nov 2025 11:31:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781982 A Section 95 IBC application was held to be within limitation where default crystallised on the demand-cum-recall notice date, later balance-sheet acknowledgments of liability extended limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, and the Supreme Court's exclusion orders covered 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022. Those acknowledgments were treated as legally effective against the personal guarantor because the guarantee deed made the borrower's acknowledgment binding on the guarantor and the guarantor's liability was co-extensive with the principal debtor under Section 128 of the Contract Act. A demand-cum-recall notice addressed to the guarantors and demanding payment within seven days was held to validly invoke the personal guarantee; the dismissal of the Section 95 petition was set aside. Case-Laws IBC Fri, 17 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781982