https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787285 A continuing guarantee remained enforceable for renewals and variations of the underlying credit facilities where the guarantor had agreed that extensions of time and reallocation of limits would not discharge liability. No novation or discharge arose because the later sanction letters were treated as renewals of the existing arrangement, and there was no written revocation of the guarantee in the prescribed manner. The insolvency application under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was within limitation because the Section 13(2) SARFAESI notice was treated as the operative trigger for default, and parallel SARFAESI proceedings did not bar recourse under the Code given its overriding effect. Admission against the personal guarantor was therefore upheld. en-us Thu, 26 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Mar 2026 08:34:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787285 A continuing guarantee remained enforceable for renewals and variations of the underlying credit facilities where the guarantor had agreed that extensions of time and reallocation of limits would not discharge liability. No novation or discharge arose because the later sanction letters were treated as renewals of the existing arrangement, and there was no written revocation of the guarantee in the prescribed manner. The insolvency application under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was within limitation because the Section 13(2) SARFAESI notice was treated as the operative trigger for default, and parallel SARFAESI proceedings did not bar recourse under the Code given its overriding effect. Admission against the personal guarantor was therefore upheld. Case-Laws IBC Thu, 26 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=787285