https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790020 For proceedings against personal guarantors under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, limitation ran from the pleaded default tied to invocation of the guarantee, not from the earlier corporate debtor default reflected in the NeSL certificate. The Section 95 application was therefore not time-barred, and the absence of the revival letter did not justify rejection on limitation grounds on these facts. A SARFAESI demand notice expressly requiring the guarantors to discharge liability within 60 days constituted valid invocation of the personal guarantees; the pleaded default date of 24.12.2019 was consistent with that invocation, so the finding of inconsistency was incorrect. The rejection orders were set aside and the Section 95 proceedings restored for fresh consideration under Section 100. en-us Thu, 16 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 18 Apr 2026 08:21:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790020 For proceedings against personal guarantors under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, limitation ran from the pleaded default tied to invocation of the guarantee, not from the earlier corporate debtor default reflected in the NeSL certificate. The Section 95 application was therefore not time-barred, and the absence of the revival letter did not justify rejection on limitation grounds on these facts. A SARFAESI demand notice expressly requiring the guarantors to discharge liability within 60 days constituted valid invocation of the personal guarantees; the pleaded default date of 24.12.2019 was consistent with that invocation, so the finding of inconsistency was incorrect. The rejection orders were set aside and the Section 95 proceedings restored for fresh consideration under Section 100. Case-Laws IBC Thu, 16 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790020