# In the matter of UCO Bank Vs. Vinod Kumar Mittal, vide CP(IB)-24(KB)2021

> NCLT judgment dated 2021-09-23. Citation: TCN-2021-NCLT-01021. The case involves an application filed by UCO Bank under Section 95(1) of the Insolvency and…

- **Court:** NCLT
- **Order date:** 23 Sept 2021
- **Citation:** TCN-2021-NCLT-01021
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclt-chandigarh/uco-bank-vs-vinod-kumar-mittal-vide-cp-d5a137cc

## Summary

### Background

The case involves an application filed by UCO Bank under Section 95(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, read with Rule 7(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority for Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtor) Rules, 2019, and Regulation 4(2) of IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtors) Regulations, 2019, to initiate the Insolvency Resolution Process against the personal guarantor, Vinod Kumar Mittal, who is one of the directors of Gontermann-Pipers (India) Limited (GPIL). GPIL had availed credit facilities from UCO Bank, which were secured by personal guarantees from Pramod Kumar Mittal and Vinod Kumar Mittal. GPIL defaulted on its repayment

…

## Facts

UCO Bank, the Applicant, filed an application under Section 95(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, to initiate the Insolvency Resolution Process against Vinod Kumar Mittal, the Respondent, who is a personal guarantor to the Corporate Debtor, Gontermann-Pipers (India) Limited (GPIL). GPIL had availed credit facilities from UCO Bank, including working capital and term loan facilities, with a total exposure of Rs. 93.20 Crores. These facilities were secured by personal guarantees from Pramod Kumar Mittal and Vinod Kumar Mittal. GPIL defaulted on its repayment obligations, leading to its accounts being declared as Non-Performing Assets (NPA) on 30/09/2015. UCO Bank issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, on 19/09/2019. GPIL was admitted

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the application filed by UCO Bank under Section 95(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy …

**Ratio:** Section 95(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, allows a creditor to file an

…

**Reasoning:** The court considered the factual matrix, including the credit facilities availed by GPIL,

…

**Interpretation:** Section 95(1) provides a mechanism for creditors to recover their dues from

…

**Application:** The court applied Section 95(1) to the facts of the case, noting that GPIL had

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Rajasekha…; Harish Chander…
- **Appellants:** UCO B…
- **Respondents:** Gontermann-Pipers…; Vinod Kumar…

## Timeline

- **2003-01-01 — Credit Facility…**: GPIL was sanctioned a working capital credit…
- **2011-01-01 — Further Credit Facility…**: The Financial Creditor further sanctioned fund-based and non-fund-based Term Loan…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 95(1) — 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/nclt-chandigarh/uco-bank-vs-vinod-kumar-mittal-vide-cp-d5a137cc