# In the matter of Union Bank of India Vs. Amit Katyal, CP (IB) - 536/ND/2021

> NCLT judgment dated 2022-05-17. Citation: TCN-2022-NCLT-02732. Union Bank of India (formerly Corporation Bank) filed an application under Section 95(1) of the…

- **Court:** NCLT
- **Order date:** 17 May 2022
- **Citation:** TCN-2022-NCLT-02732
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclt-division-bench-court-i-chenn/union-bank-of-india-vs-amit-katyal-cp-a4563cb3

## Summary

### Background

Union Bank of India (formerly Corporation Bank) filed an application under Section 95(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, read with Rule 7(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority for IRP for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtor) Rules, 2019, to initiate the Insolvency Resolution Process against Mr. Amit Katyal, the personal guarantor to Angel Infrastructure Private Limited (the 'Corporate Debtor'). The application pertains to a term loan of Rs. 90,00,00,000/- sanctioned to Angel Infrastructure Private Limited, for which Amit Katyal provided a personal guarantee.

## Facts

Union Bank of India (formerly Corporation Bank) sanctioned a term loan of Rs. 90,00,00,000/- to Angel Infrastructure Private Limited. Mr. Amit Katyal acted as the personal guarantor for the loan. The loan was secured by various documents, including guarantee deeds executed by Amit Katyal on 30.10.2014 and 22.02.2017. The Corporate Debtor's account was classified as NPA on 31.03.2019. The bank issued a notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act on 20.05.2019. The bank also issued a demand notice dated 26.04.2021 to the personal guarantor under Rule 7(1) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority for Insolvency Resolution Process of Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtors) Rules, 2019, demanding payment of Rs. 114.83 Crore. The

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the application under Section 95(1) of the IBC, 2016, is maintainable in the absence of a …

**Ratio:** The ratio decidendi is based on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in Mahendra Kumar

…

**Reasoning:** The Adjudicating Authority relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Mahendra Kumar

…

**Interpretation:** Section 95 of the IBC, read with Section 60, allows for the initiation of

…

**Application:** The ratio and reasoning were applied to the facts of the case, where the

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** BACHU VENKAT…; L. N. G…
- **Appellants:** Union Bank of…
- **Respondents:** Angel Infrastructu…; Amit Ka…

## Timeline

- **2014-07-08 — Sanction…**: Sanction letter reference no. CDS:CSI:SK:CAC:88:2014-15 for a term loan of Rs.…
- **2014-10-30 — Loan & Security…**: Loan & Security documents duly executed, including escrow account agreement, agreement…

## 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/union-bank-of-india-vs-amit-katyal-cp-a4563cb3