9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (4) TMI 371 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtors - existence of debt and dispute or not - Section 95(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - HELD THAT - The Petitioners have complied with Section 95(4), that the demand notices dated 08.11.2021 have been served to the Respondents/Personal Guarantors and that the Respondents/Personal Guarantors failed to make the payment, we have come to the conclusion that there is a default on the part of the Respondents/Personal Guarantors by not fulfilling the debts owed to the Creditor Bank as per the clauses contained in the Consent Terms in respect of the outstanding financial debt which is apparent from the documents placed on record. These petitions filed under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016(IBC) read with Rule 7(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Rules, 2019 by the State Bank of India against Personal Guarantors of the Corporate Debtor M/s. Orma Marble Palace Private Limited are allowed - moratorium declared.
Issues Involved:
Petitions filed by State Bank of India under Section 95(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against Personal Guarantors of Corporate Debtor M/s. Orma Marble Palace Private Limited. Detailed Analysis: 1. Background and Facts: The Corporate Debtor received credit facilities from the State Bank of Travancore, which later merged with State Bank of India. The Personal Guarantors executed Deeds of Guarantees for the credit facilities. Due to default, the Loan Accounts became NPA on 28.05.2018. 2. Demand and Recovery Efforts: Creditors issued a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, followed by filing an Original Application before the Debts Recovery Tribunal for recovery. Despite an OTS proposal, the outstanding dues remained unpaid. 3. Legal Provisions: Section 95 of the I & B Code, 2016 was quoted, emphasizing the creditor's right to initiate insolvency resolution process. The Petitioners complied with the necessary requirements under Section 95(4). 4. Findings and Conclusion: The Tribunal found a default on the part of the Personal Guarantors for not fulfilling debts owed to the Creditor Bank. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the petitions and issued directions, including the commencement of interim-moratorium under Section 96(1)(a) of the IBC. 5. Orders Issued: The Tribunal appointed an Insolvency Resolution Professional, initiated the interim-moratorium period, and directed the Resolution Professional to carry out specified functions. An advance payment was ordered to be made to the Resolution Professional, and further proceedings were scheduled for a later date. 6. Final Directives: The Registry was instructed to communicate the order to all relevant parties, and compliance reports were to be submitted. The Resolution Professional was given specific responsibilities and timelines to adhere to as per the provisions of the I & B Code, 2016. This comprehensive analysis outlines the legal proceedings, findings, and directives issued by the Tribunal in response to the petitions filed by the State Bank of India against the Personal Guarantors of the Corporate Debtor M/s. Orma Marble Palace Private Limited under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
|
