SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 1712

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
Mrs. Chitra Hankare, J, Dr. Velamur G Venkata Chalapathy, T
State Bank of India – Appellant
Versus
Shamlabhai Momaiyabhai Movaniya – Respondent
C.P. (IB)/169(AHM)2023 | IA/1439(AHM)2023



Advocates:
For the Applicant: Mr. Biju Nair
For the Respondent: Mr. Monaal Davawala
For the RP: Mr. Saurabh Rachchh

An application for insolvency resolution against a personal guarantor is defective and time-barred when the dates of default are inconsistent and the guarantee has not been properly invoked.

Headnote:(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 95 - Application filed by financial creditor seeking to initiate insolvency resolution process against personal guarantor for default of Rs.24,41,53,898.12/- - Guarantor disputed the application on grounds of limitation and non-invocation of guarantees - Requirement of invoking guarantees was emphasized - Delay in initiation of proceedings rejected. (Paras 2, 4, 19)

(B) Limitation - As per records of the applicant, the date of default is inconsistent, leading to ambiguity regarding the invocation of guarantee - Different dates mentioned create uncertainty over the application within the limitation period - The application was deemed defective and rejected based on lack of valid invocation of the guarantee. (Paras 10, 14, 19)

Facts of the case:
The application under Section 95 IBC seeks insolvency against the personal guarantor due to the corporate debtor's default in repayment leading to substantial debt owed. The respondent contested the filing, citing issues of limitation and procedural deficiencies in invoking the guarantee.

Findings of Court:
The discrepancies in the dates of default raised significant questions on the validity of the proceedings and showed that protocol for invocation was not adhered to, resulting in rejection of the application.

Issues: The main issues included whether the application was within the limitation period and whether the financial creditor properly invoked the guarantees.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the invocation of the guarantee was not conducted satisfactorily, highlighting the need for clear communication regarding defaults and timely initiation of the process as per IBC provisions.

Result: Application for initiating insolvency resolution process rejected.

Table of Content
1. application for insolvency filed citing substantial default amount. (Para 1 , 2)
2. respondent contests application based on limitation and procedural issues. (Para 4 , 6)
3. discussion regarding limitation and the necessity of proper invocation of guarantees. (Para 10 , 12)
4. final ruling rejecting the application due to procedural deficiencies. (Para 19)

JUDGMENT

1. State Bank of India (Financial Creditor) has filed this Application under section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code , 2016 (hereinafter referred to as IBC,2016) read with Rule 7(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority for Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtors) Rules, 2019, seeking to initiate Insolvency Resolution Process against Mr. Shamlabhai Momaiyabhai Movaniya, the Personal Guarantor of the Corporate Debtor namely M/s. Yogiraj Ginning and Oil Industries Pvt Ltd. for default of an amount of Rs.24,41,53,898.12/-.

2. As per letter of arrangement dated 07.01.2012, credit facilities were sanctioned to the Corporate Debtor. It was renewed from time to time i.e. on 15.04.2013, 09.05.2014 and 24.03.2015. The credit facilities were enhanced on 21.04.2016 and renewed on 26.04.2017 and 06.06.2018. The Respondent executed personal guarantee in favour of the applicant for securing various credit facilities to Corporate Debtor on 07.01.2012, 05.06.2014 and 24.03.2015. According to the applicant, as per the last guarantee agreement executed by the respondent dated 24.03.2015, credit facilities aggregating to Rs.19.65 crores were secured. It includes interest, charges, expenses, commissions, etc. The respondent also executed revival letter on 19.09.2017, so limitation started from that date. The Corporate Debtor defaulted in the repayment, hence, its credit facility account becomes Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 27.09.2018. The applicant, therefore, issued notice on 14.06.2019 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act to the corporate debtor and personal guarantor. They have not filed reply to said notice. Thereafter, they filed application before DRT for recovery of an amount of Rs.19,00,36,798.08. The applicant also filed application under Section 7 of the IBC against the corporate debtor which was admitted. The application for liquidation of Corporate Debtor is pending before this Tribunal. According to the applicant, the debt was due on 25.10.2019 and default was occurred on 24.12.2019. The total amount of default is mentioned as Rs.24,41,53,898.12 together with interest.

3. This Tribunal vide order dated 04.12.2023 appointed Mr. Vikas Gautamchand Jain as Resolution Professional (RP) in respect of Personal Guarantor. The RP has filed his report dated 14.12.2023. RP Recommended for initiation of insolvency resolution process against the personal guarantor.

4. The personal guarantor objected to the application contending that the application is not maintainable as it is barred by limitation. He has submitted that in the record of default to the Information Utility (IU), the date of default is mentioned as 30.06.2018 while the application is E-filed on 28.01.2023. The application is filed after delay of more than five years. The application is also defective as all relevant documents are not placed on record. No revival letter dated 19.09.2017, as alleged by the applicant, is filed on record. He further submitted that the applicant has not issued any notice invoking the personal guarantee. Applicant has only issued notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. According to the respondent, the notice issued under SARFAESI Act is for the purpose of enforcement of security interest by the banks and it cannot be construed as notice invoking guarantee under Section 95 of the Code. Moreover, the respondent has not received said notice. The applicant has no proof to show that said notice was received by the personal guarantor. He has further submitted that affidavit of applicant supportin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top