<?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>2026 (6) TMI 770 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793389</link>
    <description>Section 94 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code permits threshold scrutiny of maintainability: the Adjudicating Authority may verify the applicant&#039;s locus standi and foundational jurisdictional facts before the process moves forward, and this limited inquiry does not decide the insolvency claim on merits. On the facts discussed, the applicant was described in the sanction and facility documents as a co-borrower, no deed of guarantee was produced, and a unilateral description in a demand notice could not establish personal guarantor status. The application was therefore not maintainable for want of the necessary legal foundation, and the rejection for lack of locus standi was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Jun 2026 09:09:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=906970" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (6) TMI 770 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793389</link>
      <description>Section 94 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code permits threshold scrutiny of maintainability: the Adjudicating Authority may verify the applicant&#039;s locus standi and foundational jurisdictional facts before the process moves forward, and this limited inquiry does not decide the insolvency claim on merits. On the facts discussed, the applicant was described in the sanction and facility documents as a co-borrower, no deed of guarantee was produced, and a unilateral description in a demand notice could not establish personal guarantor status. The application was therefore not maintainable for want of the necessary legal foundation, and the rejection for lack of locus standi was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>IBC</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=793389</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>