Back
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
SANJIV JAIN, Judicial Member, VENKATARAMAN SUBRAMANIAM, Technical Member
S Senthil Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Canara Bank – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. personal guarantor's insolvency petition details and default (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 6) |
| 2. irp examination and recommendation for admission (Para 7 , 8 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. respondent objects to admission due to assets and abuse (Para 12) |
| 4. tribunal reviews evidence of debt and assets (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. no repayment capacity assessment at admission stage (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 6. irp role is facilitative, not investigative (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 7. ibc not recovery mechanism; sarfaesi irrelevant (Para 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 8. pg insolvency maintainable sans corporate cirp (Para 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 9. petition admitted; irp appointed; process initiated (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
O R D E R
(Hearing through hybrid mode
1. This Petition under Section 94 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “IBC, 2016") r/w Rule 7(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority for Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtors) Rules, 2019 has been filed by S. Senthil Kumar (“Personal Guarantor”). The prayer made in the petition is to initiate insolvency resolution process against the Personal Guarantor of the Corpor
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
