<?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>Written waiver requirement: absence of an express written waiver in a debenture trust deed defeats estoppel and supports admission under Section 7.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=97147</link>
    <description>The Court held that modification or waiver of a debenture trust deed required compliance with its express written-waiver procedure, so unilateral communications with a single debenture holder cannot bind absent the prescribed written document; estoppel against other debenture holders thus failed. The debenture trustee&#039;s duty is to protect debenture holders&#039; interests, and adverse findings of collusion were unsupported. Concurrent findings by NCLT/NCLAT were interfered with for perversity where they reframed the DTD on conjecture. The petition by the debenture trustee under Section 7 was held to be admitable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 25 Feb 2026 11:42:10 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Feb 2026 11:42:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=887888" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Written waiver requirement: absence of an express written waiver in a debenture trust deed defeats estoppel and supports admission under Section 7.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=97147</link>
      <description>The Court held that modification or waiver of a debenture trust deed required compliance with its express written-waiver procedure, so unilateral communications with a single debenture holder cannot bind absent the prescribed written document; estoppel against other debenture holders thus failed. The debenture trustee&#039;s duty is to protect debenture holders&#039; interests, and adverse findings of collusion were unsupported. Concurrent findings by NCLT/NCLAT were interfered with for perversity where they reframed the DTD on conjecture. The petition by the debenture trustee under Section 7 was held to be admitable.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 25 Feb 2026 11:42:10 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=97147</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>