2024 Supreme(Online)(NCLT) 1749
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
Rasikbhai Ghusabhai Thumar – Appellant
Versus
PREMRAJ RAMRATAN LADDHA LIQUIDATOR OF CORPORATE DEBTOR – Respondent
C.P. (IB) - 206/2021
For the Petitioner:RAJESH BOHRA
IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
AHMEDABAD
DIVISION BENCH
COURT - 1
ITEM No. 302
C.P.(IB)/206(AHM)2021
Order under Section 94 IBC, 2016
In The Matter Of:
Rasikbhai Ghusabhai Thumar ........Applicant
(Personal Gaurantor)
V/s
Premraj Ramratan Laddha
Liquidator of Corporate Debtor ........Respondent
Order delivered on: 08/03/2024
Coram:
Mr. Shammi Khan, Hon’ble Member(J) Mr. Sameer Kakar, Hon’ble Member(T)
PRESENT:
For the Applicant : For the Respondent :
ORDER
The case is fixed for the pronouncement of the order. The order is pronounced
in the open court, vide separate sheet.
-SD- -SD-
SAMEER KAKAR SHAMMI KHAN
MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
BEFORE THE ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, DIVISION BENCH – I, AHMEDABAD Filed under Section 94 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 In the matter of Mr. Rasikbhai Ghusabhai Thumar Mr. Rasikbhai Ghusabhai Thumar Address: 4th Floor, Subham Apartment, 4-Narmada Park Corner, Vidyakunj Society Main Road, Rajkot, Gujarat-360005.
… Applicant VERSUS
1. Premraj Ramratan Laddha, RP/Liquidator of Corporate Debtor
304, Abhijit-3, Above Pantaloon, Mithakhali-Law Garden road, Ellisbridge, Ahmadabad. 2. State Bank of India Stressed Assets Management Branch, Paramsiddhi Complex, 2nd Floor, Opp. V.S. Hospital, Ellisbridge, Ahmadabad.
3. Oriental Bank of Commerce. Mangal Bhuvan, Yoginiketan Plot, Nirrnala Convent School Road, Rajkot - 360 007.
4. Corporation Bank Nijanand, Dhebar Road, P.B. No. 556 Rajkot -360 002
5. State bank of Hyderabad (Merged with State Bank of India)
Asharam Road Branch, Opp. A.U.D.A.
Nagindas Chamber, Usmanpura Ashram Road, Ahmedabad -380 041
6. International Asset Reconstruction Company Pvt. Ltd.
A/508, 5th Floor, 2015 Atrium Kanakia Saces, . '
Andheri Kurla road, Andheri (E), Mumbai -400 069.
7. Rajkot Nagarik Sahakari Bank Ltd.
Aivindbhai Maniyar Nagarik Savalay, 150 Feet Ring Road, Near Raiya Circle Rajkot -360 005.
…Respondent Order pronounced on : 08.03.2024 CORAM:
Mr. SHAMMI KHAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Mr. SAMEER KAKAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
APPEARANCE:
For the Applicant/PG : Mr. Rajesh Bohra, Advocate For the Respondent/SBI : Ms. Noopur Dalal, Advocate
O R D E R
1. This application has been filed under Section 94(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 by the Applicant/Personal Guarantor to initiate proceeding in terms of in terms of Rule 6 of the IB (AAA for IRP for PGCD) Rules, 2019.
2. The present application is filed by Mr. Rasikbhai Ghusabhai Thumar who is stated to be a guarantor to the Corporate Debtors- New Tech Forge and Foundry Ltd., Micro Forge (India) Ltd., New Tech Fittings Pvt. Ltd. On perusal of the application it is observed that, the Deed of Guarantee is not annexed to the present application.
3. It is stated that the Corporate Debtor namely, New Tech Forge and Foundry Ltd was dissolved vide order dated 18.12.2019 passed in I.A. No.374 of 2019 in CP (IB) No.21/10/NCLT/AHM/2017.
4. Corporate Debtor- Micro Forge (India) Ltd. was dissolved vide order dated 12.02.2020 passed in I.A. No.375 of 2019 in CP (IB)
No.22/10/NCLT/AHM/2017.
5. Corporate Debtor- New Tech Fittings Pvt. Ltd. was dissolved vide order dated 03.06.2019 passed in I.A. No.48 of 2019 in CP (IB) No.23/10/NCLT/AHM/2017.
6. However, the Applicant has filed copy of the Notice which refers to Demand Notices dated 05.08.2008 as well as 27.11.2009 issued by the Respondent/ Rajkot &
Nagarik Sahakari Bank Ltd. State Bank of India U/s 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, 2002 and Possession Notice dated 04.12.2010 issued U/s 13(4) of SARFAESI Act, 2002 read with Rule 8(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 which are Annexure-4 annexed as with the application.
7. On perusal of these notices issued by the &
Respondent/State Bank of India Rajkot Nagarik Sahakari Bank Ltd, it is observed that said notices are issued intimating only for the purpose of enforcing security interest created by Corporate Debtor and not to invoke any Personal Guarantee.
8. The learned Counsel for the Applicant may be right in his submission that b