# In the matter of Ravi Ajit Kulkarni (Personal Guarantor of Pratibha Industries Limited) Vs. State Bank of India Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 316 of 2021

> NCLAT judgment dated 2021-08-12. Citation: TCN-2021-NCLAT-00135. The case involves a Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 316 of 2021 filed by Mr. Ravi Ajit…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 12 Aug 2021
- **Citation:** TCN-2021-NCLAT-00135
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/ravi-ajit-kulkarni-personal-guarantor-of-pratibha-industries-limited-vs-state-ba-59ffcd86

## Summary

### Background

The case involves a Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 316 of 2021 filed by Mr. Ravi Ajit Kulkarni, the personal guarantor of Pratibha Industries Limited, against an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Mumbai Bench. The Adjudicating Authority had admitted an application under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), appointing a Resolution Professional and calling for a report under Section 99 of the IBC. The application was filed by State Bank of India, the respondent, through its Resolution Professional. The appellant challenged the order, arguing that the Adjudicating Authority failed to issue proper notice and violated the principles of natural justice. The appeal also raised concerns about the

…

## Facts

Mr. Ravi Ajit Kulkarni, as the personal guarantor of Pratibha Industries Limited, filed an appeal against the order of the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Mumbai Bench, which initiated insolvency proceedings against him under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). The Adjudicating Authority appointed a Resolution Professional and called for a report under Section 99 of the IBC. The application was filed by the State Bank of India, the financial creditor, through its Resolution Professional, Mr. Ram RatanKanoongo. The appellant argued that the Adjudicating Authority did not issue proper notice to him, violating the principles of natural justice. He also contended that the Adjudicating Authority prematurely concluded that there

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Adjudicating Authority failed to issue notice to the Appellant and thus Principles of …

**Ratio:** The principles of natural justice require that a party be given adequate notice and an

…

**Reasoning:** The court noted that the appellant was served with an advance copy of the application but

…

**Interpretation:** The court interpreted the relevant provisions of the IBC and the NCLT Rules to

…

**Application:** The court found that the Adjudicating Authority had erred in concluding that

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** A.I.S. C…; Alok Sriv…
- **Appellants:** Ravi Ajit K…
- **Respondents:** Pratibha Industrie…; State Bank of…
- **Advocates:** G. AniruthPurusoth…; KunalKa…; +4 more

## Timeline

- **2021-01-15 — Listing of App…**: The application filed by the Respondent was listed for hearing before the Adjudicating…
- **2021-02-04 — Adjournment and…**: The matter was adjourned for paucity of time and then taken up for hearing and reserved…

## 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-new-delhi/ravi-ajit-kulkarni-personal-guarantor-of-pratibha-industries-limited-vs-state-ba-59ffcd86