<?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 (3) TMI 1536 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI (LB)</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788781</link>
    <description>Prior invocation of a personal guarantee is a mandatory precondition for initiating insolvency proceedings against a guarantor under the relevant rules. A demand notice in Form B under Rule 7(1) does not itself amount to invocation of the guarantee, because the statutory scheme and the guarantee deed contemplate prior creditor demand before liability arises. A creditor also cannot rely at appellate stage on a later-produced recall notice that was not pleaded in the Section 95 application, especially where it was disowned before the Adjudicating Authority. The admission order was therefore unsustainable and was set aside, and the application was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Mar 2026 08:57:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=893490" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (3) TMI 1536 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI (LB)</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788781</link>
      <description>Prior invocation of a personal guarantee is a mandatory precondition for initiating insolvency proceedings against a guarantor under the relevant rules. A demand notice in Form B under Rule 7(1) does not itself amount to invocation of the guarantee, because the statutory scheme and the guarantee deed contemplate prior creditor demand before liability arises. A creditor also cannot rely at appellate stage on a later-produced recall notice that was not pleaded in the Section 95 application, especially where it was disowned before the Adjudicating Authority. The admission order was therefore unsustainable and was set aside, and the application was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=788781</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>