Court emphasized the need for thorough evaluation of complex repayment plans in insolvency cases, allowing timeline extensions to ensure fair outcomes.

ORDER

Per: Rekha Kantilal Shah, Member (Technical)

1. The Court convened through physical mode.

I.A (IB) No. 1164/KB/2025

2. Background of the case

I. This Interlocutary Petition has been filed by Mr. Santanu Brahma, Resolution Professional of the Personal Guarantor under Rule 11 of National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 (“NCLT Rules”) seeking the following reliefs:

a) An order be passed by this Hon’ble Tribunal extending the period of 194 days for the period commencing on 18.01.2025 (i.e., date of submission of the modified repayment plan by the PG) and ending on 31.07.2025.

b) An order be passed by this Hon’ble Tribunal directing the sole creditor namely Indian Bank to expedite the process of evaluation and voting upon the modified repayment plan in a time bound manner, in the interest of spirit and crux of the IBC.

c) Liberty to file appropriate application for further extension and/or extension till the repayment plan is evaluated and finally voted upon.

d) Such further or other orders be passed and/or direction or directions be given as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the instant case.

II. The Original Application CP (IB)/80/KB/2024 under Section 95 (1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy, 2016 was filed by Indian Bank i.e. the Financial Creditor of Prime Technoplast Private Limited (Corporate Debtor) for initiating Insolvency Resolution Process against Mrs Sarah Parwaiz (Personal Guarantor).

III. The Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 29.10.2024, [Annexure- A1] initiated Personal Insolvency Resolution Professional against the Personal Gurantor.

IV. Thereafter Indian Bank had filed an Application vide IA (IB) 2051/2024 before this Hon’ble NCLT Kolkata Bench under Section 98 of the IBC, 2016 praying for inter alia replacement of the Mr. Anil Kumar Murarka, erstwhile RP with Mr. Santanu Brahma which also came to be allowed by virtue of the order of admission under Section 100 of the IBC on the very same date i.e., 29.10.2024.

V. The Applicant/Resolution Professional made public announcement under Section 102 of the IBC, 2016 in the newspaper namely the Indian Express (English) and Ekdin (Bengali). Pursuant to such publication, the Applicant had received only one claim from the Indian Bank herein.

VI. That subsequent to the collation and verification of the claim received, on 05.12.2024, the List of Creditors was prepared by the Applicant RP under Section 104 of IBC 2016. The Financial Creditor, namely Indian Bank, herein is the sole creditor forming a part of the CoC, having 100% voting share.

VII. The Applicant has conducted Five (5) meetings of the creditors as follows:

The copies of the 1st, [Annexure- A2], 2nd, [Annexure- A3], 3rd, [Annexure- A4], 4th, [Annexure- A5], 5th, [Annexure- A6] Minutes of Meeting of the creditors as stated herein above are attached in the interlocutary application.

VIII. The Applicant received the Repayment Plan in terms of section 105 of IBC, 2016, which was placed before the creditor in its first meeting dated 15.01.2025. Considering that the Personal Guarantor herein i.e., Mrs. Sarah Parwaiz has been the Personal Guarantor to the credit facilities extended to M/s. Prime Technoplast Pvt. Ltd; M/s. Prime Metalics Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Prime Steel Junction Pvt. Ltd. along with co-guarantors namely Mr. Syed Mehtab Hussain; Mrs. Mahazabeen Khatoon; Mr. Syed Farooque Hussain and Mr. Syed Israr Hussain, the Indian Bank, sole creditor, based on commercial wisdom opined that it is prudent to consider the repayment plan in a holistic manner rather than on an individual-guarant