Tribunal ruled that non-submission of a repayment plan by a personal guarantor equates to its rejection, permitting creditors to initiate bankruptcy proceedings.

ORDER

[PER: CORAM]

IA/2710/(MB)2025

1. The present Interlocutory Application (I.A.) bearing IA/2710/(MB)2025 was filed on 24.05.2025 by the Applicant/Resolution Professional (hereinafter referred to as “RP”) of Mrs. Rinki Kumar, Personal Guarantor of M/s. RPJ Overseas Exim Pvt. Ltd., under Sections 112 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “IBC”), seeking the following reliefs:-

“1. To take on record that no repayment plan has been received in case of PG Rinki Kumar of RPJ Overseas Exim P Ltd.

2. To Pass the order U/S 115 of IBC, 2016 for closure of Resolution process of PG Prakash Kumar of RPJ Overseas Exim P Ltd.

3. To allow creditors for filing the application for bankruptcy

4. Any other order as Honourable bench deem fit.”

2. The Applicant/RP submits that The Bank of Maharashtra, acting as the Financial Creditor and Petitioner, filed an application (hereinafter referred to as “Main Application”) being CP (IB) No. 1138/MB/2023 under Section 95 of the IBC before Court No. 1 of NCLT, Mumbai Bench, seeking the initiation of the insolvency resolution process for Mrs. Rinki Kumar (also known as Rinki Prakash Kumar). The said application pertains to an outstanding debt of Rs. 6,24,73,000/- (Rupees Six Crore Twenty-four Lakhs Seventy-three Thousand) together with interest, as set out in Form C under Rule 7(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority for Personal Guarantor to Corporate Debtor) Rules, 2019.

3. By order dated 07.01.2025, this Tribunal directed the commencement of the Insolvency Resolution Process against Mrs. Rinki Kumar.

4. The Applicant herein was appointed as the RP under Section 100 of IBC by the said order dated 07.01.2025. Subsequently, on 09.01.2025, the RP placed an advertisement in two newspapers to invite claims.

5. During the course of the process, the RP received the following two claims from Financial Creditors: -

6. The RP addressed a communication to the PG on 11.01.2025. On 06.02.2025, the PG telephonically expressed interest in meeting the RP; however, no meeting was subsequently held. A reminder email dated 10.02.2025 elicited no response. No particulars of assets, liabilities, financial position, or income have been furnished by the PG till date.

7. In view of the absence of any response, the RP determined that no repayment plan was forthcoming from the PG. This fact was proposed to be placed before the creditors in their meeting scheduled on 06.03.2025 at 12:00 PM at 173, Udyog Bhavan, Sonawala Road, Goregaon East, Mumbai– 400063, fixed as per Regulation 112(4)(b) for the convenience of creditors.

8. In the first meeting of creditors held on 06.03.2025, in the absence of any repayment plan, the creditors suggested that the RP attempt to negotiate with the PG so that a repayment plan could be submitted.

9. In the second meeting of creditors held on 29.04.2025, the RP informed that no repayment plan had been received from the PG. The creditors resolved that the RP should file an application under Section 112 of the IBC informing the Adjudicating Authority of the non-receipt of any repayment plan and seeking closure of the resolution process. Other resolutions, including approval of costs and expenses, were also approved unanimously.

10. Under Agenda-5 (as raised in the 2^nd Creditors’ meeting), the Creditors pas