Back
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
Canara Bank – Appellant
Versus
Valsala T S – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual analysis of the debt and guarantors. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 2. arguments against the validity of the demand notice. (Para 15 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 3. court's observations on the validity and implications of the guarantee. (Para 36 , 37 , 44 , 45 , 47 , 48) |
| 4. dismissing the petitions based on legal grounds. (Para 58 , 59) |
| 5. final procedural order and direction. (Para 60 , 61 , 62) |
ORDER
Per Coram:
1. All three captioned Company Petitions have been filed by the same financial creditor against three different individuals, each accepted personal guarantees for the same debt of the same Corporate Debtor. Given that the legal and factual issues in these cases are identical, they have been heard together, and a common order is being passed.
2. These Company Petitions are filed by the Financial Creditor, Canara Bank, Asset-Recovery Management Branch under Section 95 of the Rule 7(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter ‘the Code’) read with Adjudicating Authority for Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtors) Rules, 2019, to initiate the insolvency reso
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
