KOLKATA BENCH- I

In

Company Petition (IB) No. 89 of 2025

In the matter of:

An application under Section 99 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code;

Read with

An application under Section 95(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 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]

In the matter of:

UCO BANK

…FINANCIAL CREDITOR

Versus

Ms. Sangeeta Banka

…PERSONAL GUARANTOR

Versus

Mr. Sandip Mitra

…RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL/APPLICANT

Date of Pronouncement of Order: 18.12.2025

Appearances (via video conferencing/physically):

Ms. Sanjukta Ray, Adv. ] For the Financial Creditor

Mr. Niraj Kumar, RP ] For the Resolution Professional

O R D E R

Per: Bidisha Banerjee, Member (Judicial)

1. The Court Convened in a hybrid mode.

2. This application has been filed by the Financial Creditor, namely,

UCO Bank to initiate insolvency proceedings against Ms. Sangeeta Banka, the Personal Guarantor to the Principal Borrower M/s Banka

In Company Petition (IB) No. 89 of 2025 Infra-Materials & Products Pvt. Ltd. under Section 95(1) of the IBC and Regulation 4(2) of IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtors) Regulations, 2019 (‘Personal Guarantors Regulations’) in terms of Section 99 (1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with applicable Regulation of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtors), 2016.

1. The amount in debt is Rs.6,97,65.243.90/-(Rupees Six Crores Ninety Seven Lakh Sixty Five Thousand Two Hundred Forty Three and Ninety Paise only) including unapplied interest as on 31.07.2024 and the amount in Default is Rs.2,99,18,761.73/- as on 31.05.2018.

2. The application is complete as required under Section 95 read with Rule

7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority for Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtor) Rules, 2019.

3. It is to be noted that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment of Dilip B. Jiwrajka vs. Union of Ind ia & Ors. In WP (Civil) No. 1281 of 2021 dated 09.11.2023 has upheld the Constitutional Validity of the Sections 94 to 100 and the propositions that can be culled out from the Judgments inter-alia are as follows:

“i. No judicial adjudication is involved at the stages envisaged in Sections 95 to Section 99 of the IBC;

In Company Petition (IB) No. 89 of 2025 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 adjudicatory authority is recommendatory in nature on whether to accept or reject the application;

iii. No adjudicatory function of Adjudicating Authority is contemplated at the admission stage. To read in such a requirement at that stage would be to rewrite the statue which is impermissible in the exercise of judicial review;

iv. The resolution professional may exercise the powers vested under Section 99(4) of the IBC for the purpose of examining the application for insolvency resolution and CP/IB/337/AHM/2020 12 of 17 to seek information on matters relevant to the application in order to facilitate the submission of the report recommending the acceptance or rejection of the application;

In Company Petition (IB) No. 89 of 2025 v. There is no violation of natural justice under Section

95 to Section 100 of the IBC as the debtor is not deprived of an opportunity to participate in the process of the examination of the application by the resolution professional;

vi. No judicial determination takes place until the adjudicating authority decides under Section 100 whether to accept or reject the application. The report of the resolution professional is only recommendatory in nature and