# In the matter of Intec Capital Limited Vs. Arvind Gaudana Resolution Professional Vrundavan Ceramic Pvt. Ltd. Company Appeal(AT) (Ins)No. 220 of 2021

> NCLAT judgment dated 2022-02-07. Citation: TCN-2022-NCLAT-00640. The appeal was filed by Intec Capital Ltd, a Non-Banking Finance Company (NBFC) registered…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 7 Feb 2022
- **Citation:** TCN-2022-NCLAT-00640
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/intec-capital-limited-vs-arvind-gaudana-resolution-professional-vrundavan-cerami-a3ead974

## Summary

### Background

The appeal was filed by Intec Capital Ltd, a Non-Banking Finance Company (NBFC) registered with the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, against the order dated 05.02.2021 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Ahmedabad Bench Court No.1 in I.A No.340 of 2020 in CP(IB) No. 561/7/NCLT/AHM/2018. The case involves corporate guarantees given by Vrundavan Ceramic Pvt. Ltd. for loan facilities availed by Umiya Ceramic Pvt. Ltd. and Gokul Ceramic Pvt. Ltd. from Intec Capital Ltd.

## Facts

Intec Capital Ltd., an NBFC, sanctioned two loan facilities to Umiya Ceramic Pvt. Ltd. and one loan facility to Gokul Ceramic Pvt. Ltd. Vrundavan Ceramic Pvt. Ltd. (the Corporate Debtor) provided corporate guarantees for these loans. Umiya Ceramic Pvt. Ltd. received Rs. 3,36,23,730/-, and Gokul Ceramic Pvt. Ltd. received Rs. 1,88,76,480/-. Loan agreements were executed between the companies and Intec Capital Ltd. The Corporate Debtor executed Deeds of Guarantee, furnishing joint, several, and co-extensive guarantees. The Corporate Debtor guaranteed to discharge the dues without demur within seven days of demand. The borrowers defaulted, leading to the issuance of 'Loan Recall Notice cum Arbitration notices' on 07.03.2015. Separate 'Termination -cum Arbitration Notices'

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Adjudicating Authority erred in rejecting the Appellant's claim based on the grounds of …

**Ratio:** A guarantor's liability depends upon the terms of the contract. A 'continuing guarantee'

…

**Reasoning:** The Tribunal found that the Adjudicating Authority did not properly consider the terms of

…

**Interpretation:** The court interpreted the terms of the guarantee agreement, emphasizing the

…

**Application:** The ratio and reasoning were applied to the specific facts of the case, leading

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** M. Venu…; V. P. S…; +1 more
- **Appellants:** Intec Capital…
- **Respondents:** Vrundavan Ceramic…; Arvind Ga…

## Timeline

- **2013-03-16 — Sanction L…**: Two loan facilities sanctioned to 'Umiya Ceramic Pvt. Ltd' in terms of two separate…
- **2013-07-27 — Sanction…**: One loan facility was sanctioned to Gokul…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 61 — Appeals and Appellate Authority](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-61)

---

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-new-delhi/intec-capital-limited-vs-arvind-gaudana-resolution-professional-vrundavan-cerami-a3ead974