ORDER :

SANJIB BANERJEE, CJ.

There is no merit in the petition and the entire exercise has been a complete waste of time by an admitted defaulter who tends to believe that it is a right of an Indian citizen to obtain a loan in the name of a corporate entity and not show up at the time of repayment.

2. A yarn is sought to be spun out by referring to judgments which are utterly irrelevant in the context, provisions of the erstwhile Companies Act, 1956 and the salutary principle that all matters pertaining to a single transaction should be consolidated and taken up by one adjudicatory forum. Every trick to throw wool over the Court's eyes is resorted to in an irreverent attempt to prey on the Court's perceived ignorance of the tenets of corporate law.

3. Shorn of the irrelevant and the rubbish, the main issue involved is whether an individual, in his capacity as a guarantor in connection with credit facilities granted by a bank or financial institution to a corporate entity, may be proceeded against by way of insolvency proceedings under Section 95(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 before an appropriate Debts Recovery Tribunal.

4. In this case, a notice was issued on February