https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786241 A continuing corporate guarantee remains enforceable unless a legally effective discharge is proved. A later guarantee deed did not release the earlier guarantee, and the 30.06.2016 communication was treated as a conditional proposal rather than an operative relinquishment. Variation in credit facilities did not discharge the guarantor under Section 133 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 because no material alteration without consent was established. Pendency of a civil suit did not bar a Section 7 proceeding under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Repeated balance-sheet disclosures acknowledging liability were treated as acknowledgment, extending limitation for the insolvency application. en-us Fri, 06 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Feb 2026 07:46:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786241 A continuing corporate guarantee remains enforceable unless a legally effective discharge is proved. A later guarantee deed did not release the earlier guarantee, and the 30.06.2016 communication was treated as a conditional proposal rather than an operative relinquishment. Variation in credit facilities did not discharge the guarantor under Section 133 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 because no material alteration without consent was established. Pendency of a civil suit did not bar a Section 7 proceeding under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Repeated balance-sheet disclosures acknowledging liability were treated as acknowledgment, extending limitation for the insolvency application. Case-Laws IBC Fri, 06 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786241