The NCLT has jurisdiction to adjudicate insolvency petitions against personal guarantors even in the absence of pending CIRP against the corporate debtor, as per the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

JUDGMENT :

VIJU ABRAHAM, J.

Since common issues are involved in these writ petitions, they are heard and disposed of by a common judgment. For convenience, W.P.(C) No.29909 of 2025 is treated as the leading case and the facts of the said case will be adverted to in this judgment.

2. W.P.(C) No.29909 of 2025 is filed challenging Ext.P6 order dated 08.07.2025 passed by the 1^st respondent the National Company Law Tribunal, Kochi Bench (hereinafter referred to as “NCLT, Kochi”). Petitioner has also sought for a direction to the 1^st respondent not to register petitions filed under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “IB Code, 2016”) without pending Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (hereinafter referred to as “CIRP”) proceedings against the respective corporate debtor. Petitioner challenges the proceedings as well as the order of admission dated 08.07.2025 passed in CP(IB)/56/KOB/2023 by the NCLT, Kochi (Ext.P6). The legal contention raised by the petitioner is that the NCLT, Kochi, the 1^st respondent herein, has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Section 95 of the IB Code, 2016, since the adjudicating authority is the Debt Recovery Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “DRT”) under the Code. The subject company petition was filed by the 3^rd respondent bank before the NCLT, Kochi contending that the 5^th respondent, who is the corporate debtor, had availed several credit facilities from them and the petitioner and others had jointly executed a guarantee agreement dated 24.05.2018 in favour of the 3^rd respondent bank, thereby guaranteeing the due repayment and discharge of all amounts payable by the corporate debtor in connection with the said credit facility. The loan accounts of the corporate debtor were irregular and ultimately classified as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 24.03.2021 with retrospective effect from 20.10.2020. The personal guarantee furnished by the petitioner was purportedly invoked vide demand notice dated 30.03.2021, whereby the petitioner was called upon to repay the outstanding liabilities claimed to be due from the corporate debtor under the terms of the guarantee. The 3^rd respondent bank proceeded to file O.A. No.242 of 2021 before the DRT, Kochi against the corporate debtor and guarantors and the same is pending consideration. While so, claiming a debt of Rs.10,42,35,851/- insolvency proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and other personal guarantors as per Ext.P1 company petition before the NCLT, Kochi. Petitioner entered appearance and filed Ext.P2 reply wherein the vires of the petition was challenged on the ground that the said petition is hit by limitation as the guarantee was executed on 24.05.2018 and the invocation of guarantee on 30.03.2021 was beyond the statutory period. Ext.P3 rejoinder was filed by the 3^rd respondent bank. While so, the 1^st respondent passed Ext.P4 preliminary order dated 22.03.2024 appointing the 4^th respondent as interim resolution professional with a direction to file a report upon the averments in the company petition. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a writ petition, W.P.(C) No.14220 of 2024, before this court challenging Ext.P4 order dated 22.03.2024. It was filed raising the issue of limitation, and the court has admitted the matter and is pending consideration and the same is posted along with this writ petition. While the said writ petition is pending, the NCLT, Kochi, proceeded to pass Ext.P6 order dated 08.07.2025 admitting the company petition and further ordered that the petitioner shall not transfer, alienate, encumber or dispose of any of his assets or his legal rights or beneficial interest therein. Petitioner submits that he is seriously aggrieved by