Defendant No.2 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of the plaint. The defendant argued that the suit was not maintainable against them due to an interim moratorium under Section 96 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), as they are a personal guarantor (PG) to a corporate debtor (CD). The plaintiff had initiated Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the corporate debtor (defendant no.3) and invoked the personal guarantee of defendant no.1, but not defendant no.2, acknowledging the subsisting interim moratorium.
Defendant No.2 filed an application (I.A. 32519/2025) under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of the plaint.
Defendant No.2 argued that the suit is not maintainable against them as it is barred by law due to an interim moratorium under Section 96 of the IBC.
Plaintiff (IDBI Trusteeship Services Limited) filed Company Petition C.P. (IB) 206 of 2025 before the NCLT, Chandigarh Bench, against defendant no.3 (principal borrower) for an alleged default of Rs.15,23,73,367/-.
Plaintiff invoked the Personal Guarantee of defendant no.1 by issuing a demand notice dated 30.05.2025.
Plaintiff did not invoke the Personal Guarantee of defendant no.2, being aware that an interim moratorium was subsisting in respect of defendant no.2.
…Sign in to view the parties.
Plaintiff filed an…
The Resolution…
Defendant No.2 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of the plaint. The defendant argued that the suit was not maintainable against them due to an interim moratorium under Section 96 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), as they are a personal guarantor (PG) to a corporate debtor (CD). The plaintiff had initiated Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the corporate debtor (defendant no.3) and invoked the personal guarantee of defendant no.1, but not defendant no.2, acknowledging the subsisting interim moratorium.
Defendant No.2 filed an application (I.A. 32519/2025) under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of the plaint.
Defendant No.2 argued that the suit is not maintainable against them as it is barred by law due to an interim moratorium under Section 96 of the IBC.
Plaintiff (IDBI Trusteeship Services Limited) filed Company Petition C.P. (IB) 206 of 2025 before the NCLT, Chandigarh Bench, against defendant no.3 (principal borrower) for an alleged default of Rs.15,23,73,367/-.
Plaintiff invoked the Personal Guarantee of defendant no.1 by issuing a demand notice dated 30.05.2025.
Plaintiff did not invoke the Personal Guarantee of defendant no.2, being aware that an interim moratorium was subsisting in respect of defendant no.2.
…Plaintiff filed an…
The Resolution…