The State Bank of India filed separate and independent Company Petitions under Section 60(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code against personal guarantors (Mr. Vijaraj Surana, Mr. Dinesh Chand Surana, Mr. Gowthamraj Surana, and Mr. Shantilal Surana) of M/s Surana Power Limited, a corporate debtor. The bank sought to initiate insolvency resolution processes against these personal guarantors, arguing that creditors can initiate insolvency proceedings against guarantors before the NCLT where CIRP is pending against the corporate debtor. The respondents argued that NCLT lacks jurisdiction because Part-III of the Code, which deals with insolvency resolution for individuals and partnership firms, has not been notified.
M/s. State Bank of India (SBI) filed company petitions against Mr. Vijaraj Surana, Mr. Dinesh Chand Surana, Mr. Gowthamraj Surana, and Mr. Shantilal Surana, who are personal guarantors to a loan availed by M/s. Surana Power Limited, the corporate debtor. SBI initiated these proceedings under Section 60(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), seeking to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the personal guarantors. The corporate debtor, M/s. Surana Power Limited, defaulted on its loan repayment to SBI. A Section 9 proceeding was initiated against the corporate debtor, and an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) was appointed. The respondents, being the personal guarantors, argued that the NCLT lacks jurisdiction to deal with these
…Sign in to view the parties.
Section 60(2) of the Code was notified,…
The Government of India issued a press release…
The State Bank of India filed separate and independent Company Petitions under Section 60(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code against personal guarantors (Mr. Vijaraj Surana, Mr. Dinesh Chand Surana, Mr. Gowthamraj Surana, and Mr. Shantilal Surana) of M/s Surana Power Limited, a corporate debtor. The bank sought to initiate insolvency resolution processes against these personal guarantors, arguing that creditors can initiate insolvency proceedings against guarantors before the NCLT where CIRP is pending against the corporate debtor. The respondents argued that NCLT lacks jurisdiction because Part-III of the Code, which deals with insolvency resolution for individuals and partnership firms, has not been notified.
M/s. State Bank of India (SBI) filed company petitions against Mr. Vijaraj Surana, Mr. Dinesh Chand Surana, Mr. Gowthamraj Surana, and Mr. Shantilal Surana, who are personal guarantors to a loan availed by M/s. Surana Power Limited, the corporate debtor. SBI initiated these proceedings under Section 60(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), seeking to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the personal guarantors. The corporate debtor, M/s. Surana Power Limited, defaulted on its loan repayment to SBI. A Section 9 proceeding was initiated against the corporate debtor, and an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) was appointed. The respondents, being the personal guarantors, argued that the NCLT lacks jurisdiction to deal with these
…Section 60(2) of the Code was notified,…
The Government of India issued a press release…