https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95827 The dominant issue was whether the applicant qualified as a financial creditor on the basis of an alleged corporate guarantee. The tribunal held that no valid and enforceable guarantee was proved because reliance on a master loan clause, absent a separate guarantee deed, prior invocation, or authorising board resolution, did not establish a binding guarantee or a financial debt under s. 5(8)(i) IBC; accordingly, the claim was rightly rejected. It further held that the claim was time-barred and could not be entertained after resolution plan approval, and that filing the same admitted debt in two CIRPs without safeguards against double recovery was impermissible duplication; hence the appeal was dismissed - NCLAT en-us Thu, 08 Jan 2026 08:19:12 +0530 Thu, 08 Jan 2026 08:19:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95827 The dominant issue was whether the applicant qualified as a financial creditor on the basis of an alleged corporate guarantee. The tribunal held that no valid and enforceable guarantee was proved because reliance on a master loan clause, absent a separate guarantee deed, prior invocation, or authorising board resolution, did not establish a binding guarantee or a financial debt under s. 5(8)(i) IBC; accordingly, the claim was rightly rejected. It further held that the claim was time-barred and could not be entertained after resolution plan approval, and that filing the same admitted debt in two CIRPs without safeguards against double recovery was impermissible duplication; hence the appeal was dismissed - NCLAT Highlights IBC Thu, 08 Jan 2026 08:19:12 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95827