The case involves an application filed by State Bank of India (SBI) under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, against Nathella Sampath Chetty & Co, the personal guarantor to Nathella Sampath Jewellery Private Limited, which is undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). SBI sought to initiate insolvency proceedings against the personal guarantor due to defaults. The application was filed before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Division Bench II, Chennai. The respondent contended that the applicant had not served the proper demand notice under IBC and had only sent demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and it could not be considered as a notice for invocation of guarantee. The respondent also
…State Bank of India (SBI) filed an application under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, against Nathella Sampath Chetty & Co, a partnership firm. Nathella Sampath Chetty & Co acted as a personal guarantor for Nathella Sampath Jewellery Private Limited, the Corporate Debtor, which was undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The date of default was stated as 2018-02-04. Agreements of Guarantee were executed by the Personal Guarantor. SBI issued a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act to the Respondent. The Respondent contended that the Applicant had not served the proper demand notice under IBC and had only sent demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. The deeds of guarantee dated
…Sign in to view the parties.
The date of default as…
An order was passed for the liquidation of…
The case involves an application filed by State Bank of India (SBI) under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, against Nathella Sampath Chetty & Co, the personal guarantor to Nathella Sampath Jewellery Private Limited, which is undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). SBI sought to initiate insolvency proceedings against the personal guarantor due to defaults. The application was filed before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Division Bench II, Chennai. The respondent contended that the applicant had not served the proper demand notice under IBC and had only sent demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act and it could not be considered as a notice for invocation of guarantee. The respondent also
…State Bank of India (SBI) filed an application under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, against Nathella Sampath Chetty & Co, a partnership firm. Nathella Sampath Chetty & Co acted as a personal guarantor for Nathella Sampath Jewellery Private Limited, the Corporate Debtor, which was undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The date of default was stated as 2018-02-04. Agreements of Guarantee were executed by the Personal Guarantor. SBI issued a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act to the Respondent. The Respondent contended that the Applicant had not served the proper demand notice under IBC and had only sent demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. The deeds of guarantee dated
…The date of default as…
An order was passed for the liquidation of…