<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2026 (2) TMI 436 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786241</link>
    <description>A continuing corporate guarantee remained enforceable because the second deed&#039;s recital is non operative and blank spaces were immaterial as they were in recitals, not in operative terms; if the second deed were void the first deed would still bind the guarantor. A bank&#039;s review proposal did not constitute novation or discharge absent fulfillment of specified conditions, so the guarantee subsisted and was rightly invoked. Pendency of a civil suit did not bar initiation of corporate insolvency proceedings unless fraud is pleaded and proved. The guarantor&#039;s acknowledgment of liability within the limitation period prevented time bar; the adjudicating authority&#039;s acceptance of the petition was affirmed and the appeal dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Feb 2026 07:46:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=885454" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (2) TMI 436 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786241</link>
      <description>A continuing corporate guarantee remained enforceable because the second deed&#039;s recital is non operative and blank spaces were immaterial as they were in recitals, not in operative terms; if the second deed were void the first deed would still bind the guarantor. A bank&#039;s review proposal did not constitute novation or discharge absent fulfillment of specified conditions, so the guarantee subsisted and was rightly invoked. Pendency of a civil suit did not bar initiation of corporate insolvency proceedings unless fraud is pleaded and proved. The guarantor&#039;s acknowledgment of liability within the limitation period prevented time bar; the adjudicating authority&#039;s acceptance of the petition was affirmed and the appeal dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786241</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>