Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 1240
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
Smt. Lakshmi Gurung, J, Sh. Sanjiv Dutt, T
STCI Finance Limited – Appellant
Versus
Ms. Priyal Mansukhani – Respondent
C.P. (IB)/82 (MB)2022|I.A. 983/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Adv. Bharati Bhansali i/b FZB & Associates
For the Respondents: Adv. Mohammed Muzammil
The appointment of a Resolution Professional under the IBC is a procedural matter, emphasizing the facilitative role of the RP and the protection of the debtor through an interim-moratorium.
Headnote:(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 95 - Application for appointment of Resolution Professional - Financial Creditor sought to replace the existing Resolution Professional due to withdrawal of consent on health grounds - New RP appointed with valid consent - Interim-moratorium under Section 96 commenced upon filing of application, staying legal actions against the debtor. (Paras 1, 4, 11, 14)
(B) Personal Guarantors - The process for initiating insolvency resolution against personal guarantors follows the provisions under the IBC, with no judicial adjudication required at the initial stages. (Paras 9)
Facts of the case:
The financial creditor filed an application under Section 95 of the IBC to initiate insolvency resolution against the personal guarantor after the corporate debtor defaulted on a loan, invoking the guarantee dated 04.01.2016. (Paras 2, 5)
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal allowed the application for the appointment of a new Resolution Professional and initiated the interim-moratorium period. (Paras 11, 14)
Issues: The key issues were the withdrawal of consent by the previous RP and the appointment of a new RP under the IBC. (Paras 1, 4)
Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal emphasized the procedural aspects of the IBC, confirming that the appointment of RP is a facilitative role, and the interim-moratorium protects the debtor from legal actions. (Paras 9, 14)
Result: Application allowed and new Resolution Professional appointed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the financial transaction and guarantee. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. administrative orders and directives issued. (Para 5 , 12 , 13 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 3. supreme court's observations on ibc process. (Para 9) |
| 4. appointment of resolution professional and interim-moratorium. (Para 11 , 14 , 15) |
ORDER
1. The Petitioner is a public limited company incorporated on 10.12.1994 under Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in the lending and financing activities.
2. The Petitioner had sanctioned a Corporate Short-Term Loan of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- (Rupees ten Crores) to M/s Man Tubinox Limited (‘Corporate Debtor’) vide Sanction Letter dated 27.11.2015, pursuant to which Loan Agreement/ Facility Agreement dated 01.12.2015. Copy of the Sanction Letter dated 27.11.2015 and Loan Agreement/ Facility Agreement dated 01.12.2015 are attached as Annexure - ‘4’ and Annexure - ‘5’ to the Petition.
3. Ms. Priyal Mansukhani, the Personal Guarantee had executed Deed of Guarantee dated 04.01.2016 to secure the loan was sanctioned to the Corporate Debtor. The Deed of Guarantee dated 04.01.2016 is annexed as Annexure- ‘6’ to the Petition.
4. As the Corporate Debtor defaulted in repayment of the unsecured loan, its loan account was declared as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 27.08.2018 Furthermore, the corporate debtor was also admitted to insolvency proceedings vide order dated 12.06.2019.
5. It is submitted that the Petitioner invoked the guarantee issued by the Respondent on 31.12.2019. The letter of invocation of guarantee is annexed as Annexure- ‘10’ to the petition. The Personal Guarantor has replied to said notice by letter dated 30.01.2020, as enclosed at page no. 188 of Annexure- ‘10’ to the petition which indicates that the guarantee invocation letter was duly received by the Respondent.
6. Subsequently, the Petitioner issued a demand notice dated 08.07.2021 under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 to the Respondent which is annexed as Annexure- ‘11’ to the petition. It was served on the Respondent on 28.07.2021 via RPAD and also by e-mail dated 05.08.2021.
7. The said Demand Notice sought repayment of an outstanding debt of Rs. 12,15,78,860/- as on 25.05.2021 (inclusive of principal, interest, and additional interest) within fourteen days of its service. The outstanding debt comprises a principal amount of Rs. 7,00,00,000 and interest of Rs. 5,15,78,860. The Respondent has not filed a reply to the said Demand Notice.
8. In view of the aforesaid, the present application has been filed for appointment of Resolution Professional (‘RP’) under section 95 of IBC.
9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dilip B Jiwrajka Vs. Union of India & Ors. (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1281 of 2021) decided on 09.11.2023 upheld the constitutional validity of Sections 94 and 100 of the Code as follows-: “xxx…….
i. No judicial adjudication is involved at the stages envisaged in Section 95 to Section 99 of the IBC;
ii. The Resolution Professional appointed under Section 97 serves a facilitative role of collating all the facts relevant to the examination of the application for the commencement of the insolvency resolution process which has been preferred under Section 94 or Section 95. The report to be submitted to the Adjudicating Authority is recommendatory in nature on whether to accept or reject the application.
…xxx”
(emphasis provided)
10. T he Petition for initiating insolvency resolution process against Personal Guarantor to the Corporate Debtor is in prescribed form as mandated under section 95(6) of the IBC, and a copy of this present petition has been served on the Respondent.
11. By virtue of the order passed in I.A. 983 of 2025, the name of the newly proposed RP is taken on record and accordingly, we appoint the Mr. Hari Kishan Bhoklay, Registration No. IBBI/IPA-003/IP- N00228/2019-2020/12696 as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) having e-mail id: bhoklay.hk@hotmail.com to carry out the functions as mentioned under the In
