https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792881 In proceedings under Sections 95 and 100 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, a continuing guarantee invoked by demand is enforceable from the date of demand, so the limitation objection failed where the petition was filed within time after the demand and default dates. The record was also sufficient at the admission stage to show financial debt and default, based on the guarantee and acknowledgment, audited balance sheets showing borrowings, and the admitted claim in liquidation proceedings; differences in amounts were treated as arising from different cut-off dates. An alleged conflict of interest of the resolution professional did not by itself invalidate the admission order, though substitution could be considered. The admission order was left undisturbed. en-us Wed, 25 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Jun 2026 08:07:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792881 In proceedings under Sections 95 and 100 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, a continuing guarantee invoked by demand is enforceable from the date of demand, so the limitation objection failed where the petition was filed within time after the demand and default dates. The record was also sufficient at the admission stage to show financial debt and default, based on the guarantee and acknowledgment, audited balance sheets showing borrowings, and the admitted claim in liquidation proceedings; differences in amounts were treated as arising from different cut-off dates. An alleged conflict of interest of the resolution professional did not by itself invalidate the admission order, though substitution could be considered. The admission order was left undisturbed. Case-Laws IBC Wed, 25 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792881