The appeals challenge the order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, which admitted Section 95 applications filed by the appellants, who are personal guarantors. The appellants argue that there was an OTS proposal submitted by the principal borrower, approved by the bank for Rs. 7 crores, with Rs. 1.75 crores already paid. This OTS was subject to DRT consent, where the application was pending. The bank allegedly backtracked from the OTS, leading the borrower to file a writ petition before the Punjab & Haryana High Court challenging the bank's action.
Two appeals were filed challenging the order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, which admitted Section 95 applications filed by the appellants as personal guarantors. An OTS proposal was submitted by the principal borrower, approved by the bank for Rs. 7 crores, with Rs. 1.75 crores already paid. The OTS was subject to DRT consent, where the application was pending. The bank allegedly backtracked from the OTS, leading the borrower to file a writ petition before the Punjab & Haryana High Court challenging the bank's action. The High Court is currently considering the matter. The appellants argue that personal insolvency proceedings should not continue given the OTS proposal and the ongoing proceedings in the High Court. The key fact is
…Sign in to view the parties.
The NCLAT passed an order dismissing the…
The appeals challenge the order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, which admitted Section 95 applications filed by the appellants, who are personal guarantors. The appellants argue that there was an OTS proposal submitted by the principal borrower, approved by the bank for Rs. 7 crores, with Rs. 1.75 crores already paid. This OTS was subject to DRT consent, where the application was pending. The bank allegedly backtracked from the OTS, leading the borrower to file a writ petition before the Punjab & Haryana High Court challenging the bank's action.
Two appeals were filed challenging the order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, which admitted Section 95 applications filed by the appellants as personal guarantors. An OTS proposal was submitted by the principal borrower, approved by the bank for Rs. 7 crores, with Rs. 1.75 crores already paid. The OTS was subject to DRT consent, where the application was pending. The bank allegedly backtracked from the OTS, leading the borrower to file a writ petition before the Punjab & Haryana High Court challenging the bank's action. The High Court is currently considering the matter. The appellants argue that personal insolvency proceedings should not continue given the OTS proposal and the ongoing proceedings in the High Court. The key fact is
…The NCLAT passed an order dismissing the…