# In the matter of Rohit Nath @ Rohit Rabindra Nath vs. KEB Hana Bank Ltd. C.R.P.No.2513 of 2022 and C.M.P.No.12925 of 2022

> HC judgment dated 2023-03-30. Citation: TCN-2023-HC-00069. The case involves a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to…

- **Court:** HC
- **Order date:** 30 Mar 2023
- **Citation:** TCN-2023-HC-00069
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/high-courts-new-delhi/rohit-nath-rohit-rabindra-nath-vs-keb-hana-bank-ltd-crpno2513-of-2022-and-cmpno1-95a614f2

## Summary

### Background

The case involves a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside an order passed by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) - II, Chennai. The petitioner, Rohit Nath, is a personal guarantor for a corporate debtor, Alectrona Energy Private Ltd., which borrowed a sum of Rs.35,00,00,000/- from KEB Hana Bank Ltd. The company defaulted, and the loan accounts were classified as Non-Performing Assets. The respondent bank initiated bankruptcy proceedings against the petitioner before the DRT. Simultaneously, the respondent bank initiated corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) against the corporate debtor before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT). The petitioner contended that the proceedings against him should be transferred

…

## Facts

Alectrona Energy Private Ltd. borrowed Rs.35,00,00,000/- as working capital from KEB Hana Bank Ltd. during 2016-2018 and also availed a foreign letter of credit of Rs.5,40,97,392.45. The company defaulted in payment, and the loan accounts were classified as Non-Performing Assets on 2018-08-29. As of 2022-02-23, Rs.60,61,13,173.26 was due, including Rs.39,37,90,400/- as secured debt and Rs.21,23,22,773.26 as unsecured debt. The Government of India issued a notification on 2019-11-15, effective 2019-12-01, bringing provisions of the IBC into force for personal guarantors to corporate debtors. The respondent bank filed an application on 2020-03-09 before the DRT-II, Chennai, under Section 95 of the IBC against Rohit Nath, the personal guarantor, for the unsecured portion

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether NCLT alone has jurisdiction in matters of insolvency resolution and bankruptcy process for …

**Ratio:** Section 5(1) of The IBC specifies the adjudicating authority for Part-II (Insolvency

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that if the NCLT had exclusive jurisdiction, Rule 3(1)(a)(ii) of the

…

**Interpretation:** Section 60(1) of the IBC primarily locates the appropriate Tribunal having

…

**Application:** The court applied this reasoning to the facts of the case, noting that the DRT

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** T.RA…; D.BHARATHA…
- **Appellants:** Rohit…
- **Respondents:** Alectrona Energy…; KEB Hana Ba…

## Timeline

- **2016-01-01 — Loan Bor…**: Alectrona Energy Private Ltd. borrowed Rs.35,00,00,000/- from KEB Hana Bank Ltd. as…
- **2018-08-29 — Loan Classifie…**: Loan accounts were classified…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 7 — Initiation of corporate insolvency resolution…](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-7)

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/high-courts-new-delhi/rohit-nath-rohit-rabindra-nath-vs-keb-hana-bank-ltd-crpno2513-of-2022-and-cmpno1-95a614f2