# In the matter of Reena Paul vs. CA Francis Mathew,

> NCLAT judgment dated 2025-10-29. Citation: TCN-2025-NCLAT-00545. The case involves five company appeals filed by personal guarantors against the rejection of…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 29 Oct 2025
- **Citation:** TCN-2025-NCLAT-00545
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-chennai/reena-paul-vs-ca-francis-mathew-9dad4626

## Summary

### Background

The case involves five company appeals filed by personal guarantors against the rejection of their repayment plans under Section 106 of the I&B Code. The Appellants are personal guarantors to the Corporate Debtor, M/s. Unitek Power Solutions India Limited, with M/s. JM Financials Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. being the financial creditor. The Appellants were subjected to personal insolvency proceedings following the admission of Section 95 applications under the I&B Code.

## Facts

Five company appeals were filed by personal guarantors against the rejection of their repayment plans.

The Appellants are personal guarantors to the Corporate Debtor, M/s. Unitek Power Solutions India Limited.

M/s. JM Financials Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. is the financial creditor.

The Appellants were subjected to personal insolvency proceedings following the admission of Section 95 applications.

The NCLT rejected the repayment plans on 28.06.2023.

The Appellants argued that the RP improperly considered their repayment plans collectively.

The Committee of Creditors (CoC) rejected the repayment plans as they offered Rs. 21 crores against the expected amount of at least Rs. 25 crores, along with a deposit of 10% of upfront in cash.

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Resolution Professional erred in considering the repayment plans of the personal …

**Ratio:** The tribunal held that the RP did not err, as the repayment plans were considered

…

**Reasoning:** The tribunal noted that the NCLT had considered the repayment plans individually and that

…

**Interpretation:** The tribunal interpreted Section 105 of the I&B Code as requiring

…

**Application:** The tribunal applied this interpretation to the facts, finding that the RP had

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Sharad Kumar…; Jatindranat…
- **Appellants:** Reena…; KG P…; +4 more
- **Respondents:** Unitek Power…; CA Francis…
- **Other parties:** JM Financials…
- **Advocates:** K. Jagann…; Anil Re…; +3 more

## Timeline

- **17.03.2022 — NCLT Ord…**: The Learned NCLT passed an order admitting the Appellants to face the personal insolvency…
- **31.03.2022 — Paper Publi…**: The RP issued a paper publication…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 95 — Application by creditor to initiate insolvency…](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-95)

---

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/nclat-chennai/reena-paul-vs-ca-francis-mathew-9dad4626