<?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 737 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI (LB)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786589</link>
    <description>Applications by personal guarantors under Section 94 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 are governed by the three-year limitation period under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. On the facts stated, the defaults and invocation of guarantees arose between 2013 and 2017, but the applications were filed only on 05.04.2023, so they were time-barred. Pendency of proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 before the DRT did not extend limitation, and exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act was found inapplicable on these facts. Reliance on Sesh Nath Singh did not assist the guarantors.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2026 09:13:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=886520" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (2) TMI 737 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI (LB)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786589</link>
      <description>Applications by personal guarantors under Section 94 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 are governed by the three-year limitation period under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. On the facts stated, the defaults and invocation of guarantees arose between 2013 and 2017, but the applications were filed only on 05.04.2023, so they were time-barred. Pendency of proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 before the DRT did not extend limitation, and exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act was found inapplicable on these facts. Reliance on Sesh Nath Singh did not assist the guarantors.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Aug 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786589</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>