# In the matter of Vikram Kumar, Proprietor vs. Aranca (Mumbai) Private Limited

> NCLAT judgment dated 2023-09-14. Citation: TCN-2023-NCLAT-00203. The appeal was filed under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, against…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 14 Sept 2023
- **Citation:** TCN-2023-NCLAT-00203
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/vikram-kumar-proprietor-vs-aranca-a4db3536

## Summary

### Background

The appeal was filed under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, against the order dated March 9, 2023, passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Court – IV). The appellant, Vikram Kumar, proprietor of Sourya Containers Leasing Company (Financial Creditor), filed an application under Section 7 of the IBC, 2016, for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the respondent, Aranca (Mumbai) Private Limited (Corporate Guarantor). The Corporate Guarantor had issued an irrevocable Deed of Guarantee in favor of the Appellant against the borrowing raised by Meher Miracles Pvt. Ltd. (Borrower). The AA dismissed the application, deeming it not maintainable because the Financial Creditor had

…

## Facts

Vikram Kumar, the proprietor of Sourya Containers Leasing Company, is the Financial Creditor. Aranca (Mumbai) Private Limited is the Corporate Guarantor. Meher Miracles Pvt. Ltd. is the Borrower who raised funds for a 'Celebrity Football Match' in Dubai. The Borrower defaulted on the loan, leading the Financial Creditor to invoke the Guarantee. The Financial Creditor filed an application under Section 7 of the IBC, 2016, to initiate CIRP against the Corporate Guarantor. The Adjudicating Authority (AA) dismissed the application, citing that the invocation of the Corporate Guarantee occurred on August 25, 2020, falling within the period specified under Section 10-A of the IBC, 2016, during which CIRP could not be initiated. The Financial Creditor appealed, arguing that

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Adjudicating Authority erred in …

**Ratio:** The date of invocation of the guarantee is critical in determining whether the

…

**Reasoning:** The court considered the Appellant's argument that the guarantee was invoked on June 11,

…

**Interpretation:** Section 10A of the IBC, 2016, suspends the initiation of CIRP for defaults

…

**Application:** The court found that the formal notice of invocation was dated August 25, 2020,

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Anant Bijay…; Ajai Das Me…
- **Appellants:** Vikram…
- **Respondents:** Aranca (Mumbai)…

## Timeline

- **2016-01-01 — Enactment…**: The Insolvency and…
- **2019-06-11 — Alleged Invocation of…**: Appellant claims Guarantee was invoked via letter to Mr. Hemendra Aran and Mrs. Gitanjali…

## 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/vikram-kumar-proprietor-vs-aranca-a4db3536