https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98592 The insolvency admission was upheld because the corporate debtor could not reopen the validity of bank guarantee invocation after the DRT had already found that the guarantees were invoked before expiry and that finding had attained finality. The tribunal also treated the later one time settlement as a formal acknowledgment of the outstanding debt, and the debtor's failure to comply with that settlement constituted default. In view of the admitted sanction of the credit facility, execution of the corporate guarantee and mortgage, and remittance by the bank on invocation, the challenge to admission was untenable and the insolvency application remained valid. en-us Thu, 09 Apr 2026 08:09:11 +0530 Thu, 09 Apr 2026 08:09:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98592 The insolvency admission was upheld because the corporate debtor could not reopen the validity of bank guarantee invocation after the DRT had already found that the guarantees were invoked before expiry and that finding had attained finality. The tribunal also treated the later one time settlement as a formal acknowledgment of the outstanding debt, and the debtor's failure to comply with that settlement constituted default. In view of the admitted sanction of the credit facility, execution of the corporate guarantee and mortgage, and remittance by the bank on invocation, the challenge to admission was untenable and the insolvency application remained valid. Highlights IBC Thu, 09 Apr 2026 08:09:11 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=98592