<?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>Corporate guarantee liability limited to equity and shortfall obligations; Section 7 insolvency claim barred by Section 10A.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99492</link>
    <description>Corporate guarantee and cost-overrun undertakings were interpreted as limited obligations to infuse equity, meet shortfalls, or cover specified contingencies; they did not create a liability to repay the principal borrower&#039;s loan, so a Section 7 petition against the corporate debtor was not maintainable on that basis. The tribunal also held that default of the principal borrower could not be treated as the guarantor&#039;s default; default arose only after invocation of the guarantee and non-payment thereafter, which on the bank&#039;s own case fell within the Section 10A suspension period. Non-consideration of the later guarantee deed and inconsistent treatment of the same transaction further indicated non-application of mind, making the admission order unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 May 2026 08:32:10 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 May 2026 08:32:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=900059" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Corporate guarantee liability limited to equity and shortfall obligations; Section 7 insolvency claim barred by Section 10A.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99492</link>
      <description>Corporate guarantee and cost-overrun undertakings were interpreted as limited obligations to infuse equity, meet shortfalls, or cover specified contingencies; they did not create a liability to repay the principal borrower&#039;s loan, so a Section 7 petition against the corporate debtor was not maintainable on that basis. The tribunal also held that default of the principal borrower could not be treated as the guarantor&#039;s default; default arose only after invocation of the guarantee and non-payment thereafter, which on the bank&#039;s own case fell within the Section 10A suspension period. Non-consideration of the later guarantee deed and inconsistent treatment of the same transaction further indicated non-application of mind, making the admission order unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 May 2026 08:32:10 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99492</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>