# In the matter of Indian Bank vs. Ankur Prahladka

> NCLT judgment dated 2025-01-02. Citation: TCN-2025-NCLT-00685. The case involves an application under Section 95(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,…

- **Court:** NCLT
- **Order date:** 2 Jan 2025
- **Citation:** TCN-2025-NCLT-00685
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclt-division-bench-court-i-chenn/indian-bank-vs-ankur-prahladka-d2ce2355

## Summary

### Background

The case involves an application 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 Debtors) Rules, 2019. The Financial Creditor, Indian Bank, seeks initiation of the Insolvency Resolution Process against the Respondent/Personal Guarantor, Mr. Ankur Prahladka, who is a personal guarantor to the Corporate Debtor, M/s Hitaishi KK Manufacturing Company Private Limited. The application was filed due to a default of Rs. 38,14,77,063.05/-. The Resolution Professional, Mr. Abhisekh Khemka, was appointed to assess the application. The Personal Guarantor did not raise any objections to the Resolution

…

## Facts

Indian Bank, the Financial Creditor, filed an application under Section 95(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, against Mr. Ankur Prahladka, the Personal Guarantor, due to a default of Rs. 38,14,77,063.05/-. This debt relates to credit facilities sanctioned to M/s Hitaishi KK Manufacturing Company Private Limited, the Corporate Debtor, totaling Rs. 39.18 crore on 2021-12-27. The Corporate Debtor's account was classified as NPA on 2023-07-02 due to non-servicing of interest/installment. The application was filed because Mr. Ankur Prahladka is a personal guarantor for the Corporate Debtor. The Resolution Professional, Mr. Abhisekh Khemka, was appointed and recommended admission of the personal guarantor into the insolvency resolution process. The Personal

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether an application under Section 95(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, is …

**Ratio:** The NCLT's jurisdiction under Section 60 of the IBC is linked to the insolvency

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that Section 60 of the IBC clearly links the proceedings against the

…

**Interpretation:** Section 60 of the IBC is interpreted to mean that the NCLT's jurisdiction over

…

**Application:** In this case, since no CIRP was initiated against M/s Hitaishi KK Manufacturing

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** BIDISHA BA…; D. Ar…
- **Appellants:** Indian…
- **Respondents:** M/s Hitaishi KK…; Ankur Pra…

## Timeline

- **2021-12-27 — Credit Facilities…**: M/s Hitaishi KK Manufacturing Company Private Limited was sanctioned credit facilities…
- **2023-04-04 — Debt Due…**: Date on which the debt…

## 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-division-bench-court-i-chenn/indian-bank-vs-ankur-prahladka-d2ce2355