Back
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Sharad Kumar Sharma, Judicial Member
Bobby Abraham – Appellant
Versus
Tata Capital Limited – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. identical appeals challenge personal guarantor bankruptcy orders. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. corporate debtor default led to guarantor insolvency proceedings. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. unchallenged section 114 order finalizes repayment plan rejection. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 30) |
| 4. sequential ibc chapter iii/iv compliance mandates bankruptcy post-rejection. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 5. no notice required for section 121 after unchallenged section 114. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 6. section 123 application exempts natural justice principles. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 7. waiver binds appellants to bankruptcy consequences. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48) |
| 8. appeals dismissed for lack of merit. (Para 49 , 50) |
O R D E R
(Hybrid Mode)
10.03.2026:
Oral Judgment : Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Member (Judicial):
The subject proceedings in all these Company Appeals are identical on facts and law as they are emanating from the orders that were passed on an application preferred under Section 121(B) of the I & B Code, 2016, to be read with Section 123(1) of the Code.
2. The consequential effect of the same had been that
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
