Back
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
N. Seshasayee, Member (Judicial), Indevar Pandey, Member (Technical)
Subrata Sardar – Appellant
Versus
Central Bank of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of loan, guarantee, and default (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. appellant's defenses on guarantee validity and limitation (Para 5 , 7) |
| 3. respondent's counterarguments on invocation and acknowledgment (Para 6 , 8) |
| 4. analysis of guarantee deeds' enforceability and recitals (Para 9) |
| 5. no discharge by time limit or variance under contract act (Para 11) |
| 6. pending suit does not bar section 7 petition (Para 12) |
JUDGEMENT
Per Justice N. Seshasayee, Member (Judicial)
1. This appeal is preferred by the Suspended Director of the CD who challenges the Order of the Adjudicating Authority (NCLT, Kolkata) dated 17.12.2024 in CP (IB) No. 89 of 2024, which the first respondent herein has instituted for initiating a CIRP.
2. The CD was not the principal borrower, but the corporate guarantor for the loan which the first respondent had advanced to M/s Eastern Gases Ltd., the principal borrower. The defence to the initiation of CIRP was founded on the validity, subsistence, invocation, and enforceability of the corporate guarantee itself are in serious dispute.
THE FACTS
3. The essential facts necessary for appreciating the merit of this appeal are stated as below:
a) The CD is, i
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
