https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782245 An acknowledgment of liability in a borrower's one-time settlement reply can extend limitation under section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, so the section 95 application was treated as timely after excluding the Covid period. A prior recall notice addressed to the borrower and guarantors, calling for payment and stating that the bank could proceed against them, was treated as a valid invocation of the personal guarantees. The later notice under rule 7(1) of the Personal Guarantors Rules was only the mandatory pre-filing notice for the insolvency process, not the first invocation of the guarantee. On that basis, the limitation and non-invocation objections failed. en-us Tue, 09 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 27 Nov 2025 08:36:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782245 An acknowledgment of liability in a borrower's one-time settlement reply can extend limitation under section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, so the section 95 application was treated as timely after excluding the Covid period. A prior recall notice addressed to the borrower and guarantors, calling for payment and stating that the bank could proceed against them, was treated as a valid invocation of the personal guarantees. The later notice under rule 7(1) of the Personal Guarantors Rules was only the mandatory pre-filing notice for the insolvency process, not the first invocation of the guarantee. On that basis, the limitation and non-invocation objections failed. Case-Laws IBC Tue, 09 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782245