https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791568 Section 95 insolvency applications against personal guarantors were treated as within limitation because the default had already been invoked, the debt was crystallised by prior adjudication, and later developments, including the COVID-related extension, preserved timeliness. The challenge based on limitation was rejected. The tribunal also held that approval and implementation of a resolution plan for the corporate guarantor do not, by themselves, discharge a personal guarantor's co-extensive liability unless the plan expressly provides for such release. As the plan did not extinguish the unpaid balance, the personal guarantee remained enforceable and the plea of discharge was rejected. en-us Tue, 12 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 May 2026 11:35:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791568 Section 95 insolvency applications against personal guarantors were treated as within limitation because the default had already been invoked, the debt was crystallised by prior adjudication, and later developments, including the COVID-related extension, preserved timeliness. The challenge based on limitation was rejected. The tribunal also held that approval and implementation of a resolution plan for the corporate guarantor do not, by themselves, discharge a personal guarantor's co-extensive liability unless the plan expressly provides for such release. As the plan did not extinguish the unpaid balance, the personal guarantee remained enforceable and the plea of discharge was rejected. Case-Laws IBC Tue, 12 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791568