Tribunal rectifies typographical error substituting merged entity name in insolvency order without notice.

O R D E R

Per Coram

1. Both petitions have been filed by the Tata Capital Limited as the financial creditor against two different individuals, who have stood as personal guarantors for the debt of the Corporate Debtor. The legal and factual matrix in these cases are identical. Therefore, both petitions have been heard together, and a common order is being issued.

2. These Company Petitions are filed by the Financial Creditor, Tata Motors Finance Limited under Section 95 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter ‘the Code’ or ‘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, to initiate the insolvency resolution process in respect of Mr. Rajwanth Ben and Mrs. Molly G, Personal Guarantors to M/s Malayalam Vehicles India Private Limited, the Corporate Debtor for default of a debt amounting to Rs. Rs.2,56,37,953.21/-.

2.a. Originally, these Petitions were filed by M/s. Tata Motors Finance Limited. Subsequently, pursuant to the order passed by the NCLT, Mumbai Bench in CP (C.A.A.) No. 38/MB/2025 under Sections 230 and 232 of the Companies Act, 2013, the said entity stood merged with Tata Capital Limited with effect from 01.05.2025.

3. Petitioner has produced the following documents in support of these petitions, coincidentally numbering all Annexures in both Petitioners are same:

i. Annexure C - Channel finance agreement dated 18.03.2023.

ii. Annexure D - Deed of Guarantee dated 18.03.2023.

iii. Annexure E -Copy of the Demand Notice dated 24.07.2024 along with the proof of service through Registered post and Email by the Financial Creditor to the Personal Guarantors.

4. The creditor served demand notices on the guarantors in Form B dated 23.08.2024 as required under section 95(4)(b) of the Code read with Rule 7(1) of the Rules.

5. It is stated that the amount of default exceeds the minimum threshold of Rs. One Crore; the date of default, as stated in Part III of the Petition, is 23.08.2024.

6. The petitioner has proposed the insolvency professional, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Tulsyan, Insolvency Resolution Professional having Registration IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P01144/2018-2019/11970 residing at B-4, Vinay Tower, Kranti Nagar, Lokhandwala, Kandivali East, Mumbai, Maharashtra,400101 as the Resolution Professional. The Insolvency Professional has submitted his authorization for assignment and his certificate of registration from the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India, along with the petition, and declared his eligibility to act as the RP in Part IV of the petition.

7. Upon consideration of the petitions, this Tribunal appointed Mr. Rakesh Kumar Tulsyan, Insolvency Resolution Professional having Registration No: IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P01144/2018-2019/11970 as RP on 23.06.2025. The RP has filed two applications IA/(IBC)/292/KOB/2025 & IA(IBC)/293/KOB/2025, under Section 99 (1) of IBC, 2016, along with a report, recommending the admission of the Company Petitions filed under Section 95 (1) of IBC, 2016.

8. The Respondents/ Personal Guarantors filed a reply affidavit in response to the report of the RP on 19.09.2025, stating that the present application under Section 95 of the IBC is premature and not maintainable, as the Corporate Debtor’s application under Section 10 has already been admitted by this Hon’ble Tribunal vide Order dated 04.04.2025 in CP(IBC)/55/KOB/2024. The Respondents have been named in this application solely in their capacity as personal guarantors for the same debt, which is already the subject matter of the ongoing