Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (0.25 seconds)
Mr. Subhash Aggarwal vs State Bank Of India Through Resolution ... on 29 October, 2025 cites

Jagdish Prasad Sarda vs Allahabad Bank on 28 August, 2020

30. We next come to yet another limb of argument raised by the Appellant that the present petition was time-barred and not maintainable when seen in the context of the Deed of Guarantee of 2009. It was contended that in terms of the Contract Act, once the parties alter the contract, the original contract need not be performed. When the substance of the original agreement is substantially altered, the original agreement no longer can be held to exist. It was submitted that as the Appellant stood discharged from the Deed of Guarantee of 2009 because of the material variations caused thereto on account of the Supplementary Guarantee of 2014, no Section 95 petition could be raised basis default of Deed of Guarantee of 2009 as it would be hit by the period of limitation of three years in terms of Article 137 of the Limitation Act. Attention was also adverted to the decision of this Tribunal in Jagdish Prasad Sarda Vs Allahabad Bank in CA(AT)(Ins) No. 183 of 2020 wherein it has been held that the period of limitation commences from the date of declaration of NPA. Contention had been raised that since the default in the present case had occurred on 25.07.2018 which was the date of NPA, while the Section 95 application was filed on 26.05.2022, it clearly surpassed three years and hence Page 26 of 30 Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 512 of 2024 stood time-barred. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Babulal Vardharji judgement supra in which it has been held that the IBC does not intend to give a new lease of life to time-barred debts.
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Cites 16 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

H R Parvathi vs The Manager Canara Bank on 7 April, 2010

In support of their contention reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sitaram Gupta Vs Punjab National Bank (2008) 5 SCC 711 and in H.R. Basavaraj Vs Canara Bank (2010) 12 SCC 458 in which it was held that when a party enters into a guarantee with a bank which is in the nature of continuing guarantee, the guarantee was to continue and remain in operation for all subsequent transactions. The plea taken by the Appellant of novation of contract following the execution of the Supplemental Deed of Guarantee of 2014 was opposed as misconceived.
Karnataka High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 11 - P B Sanganagouda - Full Document

M. S. Anirudhan vs The Thomco'S Bank Ltd on 14 February, 1962

In support of their contention, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.S. Anirudhan Vs Thomco's Bank Ltd., AIR 1963 SC 746 and in Ram Khilona & Ors. Vs Sardar & Ors., AIR 2002 SC 2548 wherein it was held that the effect of making an alteration in a Deed of Guarantee after its execution without the consent of the party is exactly the same as that of cancelling the deal. In the Page 14 of 30 Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 512 of 2024 present case, it was contended that since the alteration made in the subsequent guarantees were substantially material as it enhanced the guaranteed amount without the consent of the Appellant, the Appellant stood discharged under the Guarantee Deed of 25.08.2009 and Section 95 petition could not have been initiated basis the Guarantee Deed of 25.08.2009.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 31 - J L Kapur - Full Document

Ram Khilona & Ors vs Sardar & Ors on 16 July, 2002

In support of their contention, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.S. Anirudhan Vs Thomco's Bank Ltd., AIR 1963 SC 746 and in Ram Khilona & Ors. Vs Sardar & Ors., AIR 2002 SC 2548 wherein it was held that the effect of making an alteration in a Deed of Guarantee after its execution without the consent of the party is exactly the same as that of cancelling the deal. In the Page 14 of 30 Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 512 of 2024 present case, it was contended that since the alteration made in the subsequent guarantees were substantially material as it enhanced the guaranteed amount without the consent of the Appellant, the Appellant stood discharged under the Guarantee Deed of 25.08.2009 and Section 95 petition could not have been initiated basis the Guarantee Deed of 25.08.2009.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 32 - D P Mohapatra - Full Document
1   2 3 Next