https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784573 The Appellate Tribunal held that the claimant failed to establish any valid and enforceable corporate guarantee by the corporate debtor: reliance on a master loan agreement clause, without a separate guarantee deed, board resolution, or invocation of the alleged guarantee, did not create a "financial debt" under Section 5(8)(i) IBC; accordingly, the claimant was not a financial creditor on that basis and its claim was rightly rejected. The Tribunal further held the claim was time-barred, as it was filed 388 days late despite the claimant's admitted knowledge of the CIRP timelines, and could not be entertained after CoC approval of the resolution plan. It also found impermissible duplication because the same underlying debt had already been admitted in another CIRP, without safeguards against double recovery; the appeal was dismissed. en-us Thu, 03 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Jan 2026 08:19:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784573 The Appellate Tribunal held that the claimant failed to establish any valid and enforceable corporate guarantee by the corporate debtor: reliance on a master loan agreement clause, without a separate guarantee deed, board resolution, or invocation of the alleged guarantee, did not create a "financial debt" under Section 5(8)(i) IBC; accordingly, the claimant was not a financial creditor on that basis and its claim was rightly rejected. The Tribunal further held the claim was time-barred, as it was filed 388 days late despite the claimant's admitted knowledge of the CIRP timelines, and could not be entertained after CoC approval of the resolution plan. It also found impermissible duplication because the same underlying debt had already been admitted in another CIRP, without safeguards against double recovery; the appeal was dismissed. Case-Laws IBC Thu, 03 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784573