9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 584 - Tri - Insolvency and BankruptcyMaintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Personal Guarantor to the Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Financial Creditors - existence of debt and dispute or not - HELD THAT - It is pertinent to mention that as per part-III of Form-C, the total debt from the personal Guarantor, by way of personal Guarantee given to M/s. Hitech Grain Processing Pvt. Ltd., including the rate of interest as on 31.08.2020, amounts to ₹ 209,61,09,614/- - this Tribunal heard the arguments advanced by the Ld. counsel for the Applicant and perused the averments made in the application as well as the documents enclosed with the application. Further, the Respondent has not filed any submissions and on the date of hearing there was no representation from the side of the Respondent i.e., the Personal Guarantor. Based on the documents produced and placed on record before this Tribunal and on the submissions made by the Applicant, it can be concluded that there is a 'default' on the part of the Personal Guarantor, by not fulfilling the debt owed to the Corporate Debtor, i.e., M/s. Hitech Grain Processing Pvt. Ltd. as per the Deed of Guarantee entered between the parties through the Deed of Guarantee dated 06.06.2017. The Tribunal Allows the Present Application filed by Mr. S.V. Saravanan, Authorized Person on behalf of State Bank of India, the Financial Creditor, under Section 95 of the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Rule 7 of the IBC Rules 2019, against Mrs. Asha Mittal, the Personal Guarantor of the Corporate Debtor, (M/s. Hitech Grain processing Pvt. Ltd.). The Interim Moratorium as per Section 96(1) of the Code has commenced from the date of filing of Application by the Financial Creditor, i.e., 14.07.2021. Application admitted - moratorium declared - List the matter for further proceedings in the case on 09.09.2021.
Issues:
- Application under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against a personal guarantor. - Default in fulfilling debt owed to the corporate debtor. - Appointment of a resolution professional. - Commencement of interim moratorium. Analysis: 1. Application under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against a personal guarantor: The State Bank of India filed an application under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code against a personal guarantor, Mrs. Asha Mittal, for the outstanding debt of Rupees 209,61,09,614 owed by the corporate debtor, M/s. Hitech Grain Processing Pvt. Ltd. The application sought to initiate insolvency resolution process against the personal guarantor, as authorized by the financial creditor, State Bank of India. 2. Default in fulfilling debt owed to the corporate debtor: The tribunal found that there was a default on the part of the personal guarantor, Mrs. Asha Mittal, in fulfilling the debt owed to the corporate debtor, M/s. Hitech Grain Processing Pvt. Ltd. The deed of guarantee dated 06.06.2017 specified the obligations of the guarantor, and the tribunal concluded that the guarantor had not met these obligations, leading to the initiation of insolvency proceedings against her. 3. Appointment of a resolution professional: The tribunal approved the appointment of Mr. Sunil Kumar Kabra as the resolution professional in the insolvency resolution process of Mrs. Asha Mittal. Mr. Kabra was proposed by the applicant and was confirmed by the bench for this critical role. The resolution professional was directed to exercise all powers as per Section 99 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and provide recommendations with reasons for acceptance or rejection of the application within the specified time frame. 4. Commencement of interim moratorium: Upon allowing the application under Section 95 of the Code, the tribunal declared the commencement of an interim moratorium as per Section 96(1) of the Code from the date of filing. This moratorium stayed any pending legal actions or proceedings related to the debts of the personal guarantor and prevented creditors from initiating new legal actions during this period. The appointment of a resolution professional was deemed critical during this phase to safeguard the assets of the personal guarantor and ensure compliance with the provisions of the Code. In conclusion, the tribunal's judgment addressed the issues of default by the personal guarantor, the appointment of a resolution professional, and the commencement of an interim moratorium in a comprehensive manner, ensuring adherence to the legal framework of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
|
