# In the matter of Central Bank of India Vs. Sushil Kumar Agarwal, CP (IB) No. 11/KB/2022

> NCLT judgment dated 2022-05-18. Citation: TCN-2022-NCLT-02712. The case involves an application under Section 95(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,…

- **Court:** NCLT
- **Order date:** 18 May 2022
- **Citation:** TCN-2022-NCLT-02712
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclt-division-bench-court-i-chenn/central-bank-of-india-vs-sushil-kumar-agarwal-cp-e990f871

## Summary

### Background

The case involves an application under Section 95(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 filed by Central Bank of India (Financial Creditor) against Mr. Sushil Kumar Agarwal (Personal Guarantor) of Concast Steel & Power Limited (In Liquidation) (Corporate Debtor). The Corporate Debtor was admitted into Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) on November 7, 2017. Mr. Sanjay Agarwal was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP), later replaced by Mr. Kshitiz Chhawchharia as the Resolution Professional (RP). Since no resolution plan was received, the Corporate Debtor was sent into liquidation on September 26, 2018.

## Facts

Central Bank of India filed an application under Section 95(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against Sushil Kumar Agarwal, the Personal Guarantor of Concast Steel & Power Limited (In Liquidation). Concast Steel & Power Limited was admitted into CIRP on November 7, 2017, and subsequently went into liquidation on September 26, 2018, due to the absence of a resolution plan. Sushil Kumar Agarwal had executed a Deed of Hypothecation and a Personal Guarantee on June 8, 2017. The Corporate Debtor's account was declared as Non-Performing Assets in 2015. The Financial Creditor served a statutory notice of demand on March 18, 2021, for an outstanding debt of Rs. 280,93,10,825 as of January 29, 2021, which remained unpaid. The application seeks to enforce

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether an interim moratorium should be …

**Ratio:** Section 96(1)(a) of the IBC, 2016 provides for an interim moratorium upon the filing of

…

**Reasoning:** The court considered the facts and circumstances of the case and determined that an

…

**Interpretation:** Section 96(1)(a) mandates an interim moratorium to protect the debtor's assets

…

**Application:** Given the application under Section 95 was valid, the court applied Section

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Rajasekha…; Balraj…
- **Appellants:** Central Bank of…
- **Respondents:** Concast Steel and…; Sushil Kumar…

## Timeline

- **2015-01-01 — Account decla…**: The account of the Corporate Debtor was…
- **2017-06-08 — Deed of Hypothecation…**: The Personal Guarantor executed an Unattested Deed of Hypothecation and a Deed of…

## 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/nclt-division-bench-court-i-chenn/central-bank-of-india-vs-sushil-kumar-agarwal-cp-e990f871