https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95832 The dominant issue was whether a deed clause and related pleadings created a "contract of guarantee" under s.126 of the Contract Act so as to support initiation of CIRP against the alleged surety under s.7 of the IBC. The Court held that a guarantee requires an unambiguous undertaking to discharge a third party's liability upon default; a limited statement in mortgage-enforcement pleadings that liability was confined to the mortgaged property did not establish such a guarantee, and case law on admissions under s.58 of the Evidence Act was inapplicable. Consequently, the rejection of the s.7 application was affirmed and the appeal was dismissed. - SC 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=95832 The dominant issue was whether a deed clause and related pleadings created a "contract of guarantee" under s.126 of the Contract Act so as to support initiation of CIRP against the alleged surety under s.7 of the IBC. The Court held that a guarantee requires an unambiguous undertaking to discharge a third party's liability upon default; a limited statement in mortgage-enforcement pleadings that liability was confined to the mortgaged property did not establish such a guarantee, and case law on admissions under s.58 of the Evidence Act was inapplicable. Consequently, the rejection of the s.7 application was affirmed and the appeal was dismissed. - SC Highlights IBC Thu, 08 Jan 2026 08:19:12 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95832