The State Bank of India filed applications under Section 95(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the personal guarantors, Mahendra Kumar Jajodia and Bhanwar Lal Jajodia. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the applications as premature, citing that no CIRP or liquidation process was pending against the Corporate Debtor due to the approval of the Resolution Plan. The Adjudicating Authority relied on Section 60(2) of the Code, which requires a pending CIRP or liquidation process against the principal borrower/Corporate Debtor for initiating insolvency resolution against the guarantor. The appeals were filed against this order.
The State Bank of India (SBI) filed applications under Section 95(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) against Mahendra Kumar Jajodia and Bhanwar Lal Jajodia, who are personal guarantors to a corporate debtor. The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Kolkata Bench, rejected SBI's applications as premature, citing that no Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) or liquidation process was pending against the corporate debtor because a resolution plan had already been approved. The NCLT based its decision on Section 60(2) of the IBC, which states that an insolvency resolution process against a guarantor can only be initiated if a CIRP or liquidation process is pending against the principal borrower/corporate debtor. SBI appealed this decision, arguing
…Sign in to view the parties.
The Adjudicating Authority rejected the…
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal…
The State Bank of India filed applications under Section 95(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the personal guarantors, Mahendra Kumar Jajodia and Bhanwar Lal Jajodia. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the applications as premature, citing that no CIRP or liquidation process was pending against the Corporate Debtor due to the approval of the Resolution Plan. The Adjudicating Authority relied on Section 60(2) of the Code, which requires a pending CIRP or liquidation process against the principal borrower/Corporate Debtor for initiating insolvency resolution against the guarantor. The appeals were filed against this order.
The State Bank of India (SBI) filed applications under Section 95(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) against Mahendra Kumar Jajodia and Bhanwar Lal Jajodia, who are personal guarantors to a corporate debtor. The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Kolkata Bench, rejected SBI's applications as premature, citing that no Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) or liquidation process was pending against the corporate debtor because a resolution plan had already been approved. The NCLT based its decision on Section 60(2) of the IBC, which states that an insolvency resolution process against a guarantor can only be initiated if a CIRP or liquidation process is pending against the principal borrower/corporate debtor. SBI appealed this decision, arguing
…The Adjudicating Authority rejected the…
The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal…