ORDER

1. The present Petition, being CP (IB) No. 84/ND/2026, has been filed by Canara Bank Limited (“Petitioner”/“Financial Creditor”) under Section 95(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”/“Code”), read with Rule 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority for Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtors) Rules, 2019 (“Personal Guarantors Rules”), seeking initiation of Personal Insolvency Resolution Process (“PIRP”) against Mr. Suraj Mal Dabas (“Respondent”/“Personal Guarantor”/“PG”), in respect of the alleged personal guarantee furnished by him in relation to the credit facilities availed by M/s Tirupati Infraprojects Private Limited (“Corporate Debtor”/“CD”/“Principal Borrower”).

Brief facts of the case:

As submitted by the parties in the pleadings and submissions made before this Adjudicating Authority, the following are the relevant facts of the case: -

2. The Applicant, Canara Bank Limited, submitted that the present application has been filed under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “IBC”/“Code”) against the Respondent, Mr. Suraj Mal Dabas, in his capacity as the Personal Guarantor in respect of the financial debt owed by M/s. Tirupati Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Corporate Debtor”/“Borrower”) to the consortium of lenders, of which the Applicant is a member.

3. It is submitted that the Borrower had availed various financial facilities from the consortium of banks for construction of a hotel and commercial space and for meeting its other financial requirements. The said credit facilities were secured, inter alia, by guarantees furnished by the Respondent and other guarantors. The guarantee documents form part of the record of the present proceedings. The petition specifically places on record the Deed of Guarantee dated 16.02.2009 and the subsequent Deed of Guarantee dated 27.02.2013.

4. The Applicant has further submitted that the credit facilities of the Corporate Debtor were subsequently restructured under the Corporate Debt Restructuring mechanism and the Master Restructuring Agreement (“MRA”) dated 30.03.2013 was executed in respect of the existing credit facilities. The Applicant has stated that the Corporate Debtor failed to comply with the terms of the restructuring and that, in the Joint Lenders’ Meeting and Monitoring Committee held on 19.11.2014, the lenders decided to exit the restructuring arrangement on account of non-fulfilment of the conditions imposed under the MRA. According to the Applicant, this resulted in restoration of the Bank’s rights to initiate recovery proceedings, including enforcement of the personal guarantees dated 27.02.2013 and 16.02.2009.

5. The Applicant has stated that the first quarterly instalment of the Term Loan fell due on 30.06.2014 and remained unpaid. The Applicant thereafter invoked the Deed of Guarantee on 23.06.2015 by issuing a notice to the Personal Guarantors. In this regard, the Applicant has relied upon Clause 26 of the Deed of Guarantee dated 27.02.2013, which provides for the manner of service and deemed receipt of a demand made upon the guarantor.

6. The Applicant has further submitted that the Deed of Guarantee is a continuing guarantee and extends to the monies covered under the credit facilities. The Applicant has relied upon Clauses 1 and 2 of the Deed of Guarantee dated 27.02.2013 in support of its submission regarding the unconditional, irrevocable and continuing nature of the guarantee. The Applicant has also submitted that the terms of the guarantee contemplate continuation of the Guarantor’s liability notwithstanding restructuring, variation of the credit facilities, indulgence or arrangements entered into between the lenders and the Borrower.

7. The Applicant has submitted that the terms of the guarantee also provide that the Guarantor is to be treated as a principal debtor as b