https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789160 Proceedings under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code were held time-barred because the date of default was fixed as 01.08.2012, while the insolvency demand notice was issued only in 2020; limitation under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, read with Section 238A of the Code, therefore expired before initiation. The attempt to treat the personal guarantor's obligation as a continuing guarantee failed because the loan was a single term-loan facility and the contract did not show a series of recurring transactions or any express continuing liability. The order admitting the guarantor into the insolvency resolution process was set aside and the appeal was allowed. en-us Thu, 02 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 04 Apr 2026 08:53:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789160 Proceedings under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code were held time-barred because the date of default was fixed as 01.08.2012, while the insolvency demand notice was issued only in 2020; limitation under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, read with Section 238A of the Code, therefore expired before initiation. The attempt to treat the personal guarantor's obligation as a continuing guarantee failed because the loan was a single term-loan facility and the contract did not show a series of recurring transactions or any express continuing liability. The order admitting the guarantor into the insolvency resolution process was set aside and the appeal was allowed. Case-Laws IBC Thu, 02 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=789160