https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784582 The dominant issue was whether a deed of undertaking and mortgage created by a third party constituted a "contract of guarantee" under s.126 of the Contract Act so as to permit initiation of CIRP under s.7 IBC against that third party. The SC held that a guarantee requires a specific, unambiguous undertaking by the surety to discharge the principal debtor's liability upon default, and pleadings must be read holistically; an earlier statement describing a limited "guarantee" confined to mortgaged property did not establish a contractual guarantee. Authorities on admissions under s.58 Evidence Act were inapplicable. Consequently, the findings of NCLT/NCLAT that no guarantee existed and the third party was not a guarantor were affirmed, and the appeal was dismissed. en-us Tue, 06 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Jan 2026 18:00:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784582 The dominant issue was whether a deed of undertaking and mortgage created by a third party constituted a "contract of guarantee" under s.126 of the Contract Act so as to permit initiation of CIRP under s.7 IBC against that third party. The SC held that a guarantee requires a specific, unambiguous undertaking by the surety to discharge the principal debtor's liability upon default, and pleadings must be read holistically; an earlier statement describing a limited "guarantee" confined to mortgaged property did not establish a contractual guarantee. Authorities on admissions under s.58 Evidence Act were inapplicable. Consequently, the findings of NCLT/NCLAT that no guarantee existed and the third party was not a guarantor were affirmed, and the appeal was dismissed. Case-Laws IBC Tue, 06 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784582