Disposed

In the matter of State Bank of India v. Padmashree, [Cp (IB)/256(CHE)/2022]

NCLT16 Feb 2024CP (IB)/256(CHE)/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The NCLT disposed of an application filed by SBI for initiating IIPR against a personal guarantor. Citing Dilip B Jiwrajka, the court appointed a Resolution Professional to examine the application and recommended a hearing within 10 days.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Shri M Kavitha Surana as Resolution Professional and direction to serve copies of the application and order on the Professional.

In the matter of State Bank of India vs. Padmashree, [Cp… — Insolvency and Bankruptcy | NCLT (2024)

¶1

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, DIVISION BENCH – II, CHENNAI CP (IB)/256(CHE)/2022

¶2

(Filed under Section 95(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016)

¶3

STATE BANK OF INDIA Stressed Asset Management Branch, Red Cross building, Montieth road, Egmore, Chennai-8. …Applicant/Financial Creditor

¶4

Versus-

¶5

Mrs Padmashree, Flat no 24, seetha Ramaiah Towers, Moti nagar Hyderabad . … Respondent/ Personal Guarantor

¶6

Order pronounced on 16^th February 2024

¶7

CORAM

¶8

SHRI. JYOTI KUMAR TRIPATHI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) SHRI.RAVICHANDRAN RAMASAMY, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

¶9

Present:

¶10

For Petitioner : M/s M.L.Ganesh, Advocate. S. Arun Kumar, Advocate.

¶11

ORDER

¶12

( Hearing conducted through Video Conferencing )

¶13

The Applicant, Stressed Assets Stabilization Fund through has filed

¶14

this application under Section 95(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy

¶15

Code, 2016 (“IBC”) for initiating Insolvency Resolution Process against

¶16

the Personal Guarantor / Respondent Shri Padmashree of M/s. JKS

¶17

CP(IB)256(CHE)2022

¶18

State bank of India-vs-Padmashree Page 1 of 6

¶19

Construction Pvt Ltd. The Corporate Debtor against whom, CIRP was initiated vide an order dated 11.03.2022 in CP (IB)/232(CHE)/2021.

¶20

As per the averments made in the application M/s. JKS Construction Pvt Ltd. had taken credit facilities from the Applicant. The Respondent herein had given personal guarantee to the said loan. The Corporate Debtor failed to repay the debt which made the Applicant initiate CIRP against the Corporate Debtor.

¶21

In Part-III of the application, the Applicant has given the particulars

¶22

of debt as Rs.124,88,59,483.63/and the default amount is

¶23

Rs.124,88,59,483.63/-(Rupees one hundred twenty four cores eighty eight lakhs fifty nine thousand four hundred eighty three and paise sixty three

¶24

only) and date of default as 03.06.2014 The Company/Corporate Debtor

¶25

is under liquidation before Court – II of this Tribunal. The Applicant has placed the Account statement and Balance sheets at Pages 94-101, Letter of Guarantee at pages 32-54, along with the demand notice.

¶26

The Demand Notice issued under Rule 7(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority for Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtor) Rules,

¶27

CP(IB)256(CHE)2022

¶28

State bank of India-vs-Padmashree Page 2 of 6

¶29

2019 to the Personal Guarantor dated 19.08.2021 is placed at Page 68-86 of

¶30

the typed set filed along with the application.

¶31

We have heard Learned Counsel for the Applicant and perused the document placed.

¶32

Section 95 of IBC provides that a creditor may apply either by himself, or jointly with other creditors, or through a Resolution Professional to the Adjudicating Authority for initiating an Insolvency Resolution Process under the Section by submitting an application. The application shall be accompanied with details and documents relating to the debts or by the debtor to the creditor as on the date of application, failure by the debtor to pay the debt within a period of 14 days of the service of the Notice of Demand and the relevant evidence of such default or non-payment of debt. It also provides that “the creditor shall provide

¶33

a copy of the application to the debtor and the application shall be in such form and manner.

¶34

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dilip B Jiwrajka –Vs-

¶35

Union of India & Ors in Writ Petition (Civil) No 1281 of 2021 while dealing with the jurisdiction of NCLT in relation to adjudication of cases filed

¶36

CP(IB)256(CHE)2022

¶37

State bank of India-vs-Padmashree Page 3 of 6

¶38

under Section 94 and 95 of IBC, 2016 has summarized in para-86 as

¶39

follows;

¶40

86. We summarise the conclusion of this judgment below:

¶41

(i) No judicial adjudication is involved at the stages envisaged in Sections 95 to Section 99 of the IBC;

¶42

(ii) The resolution professional appointed under Section 97 serves a facilitative role of collating all the facts relevant to the examination of the application for the commencement of the insolvency resolution process which has been preferred under Section 94 or Section 95. The report to be submitted to the adjudicatory authority is recommendatory in nature on whether to accept or reject the application;

¶43

(iii) The submission that a hearing should be conducted by the adjudicatory authority for the purpose of determining ‘jurisdictional facts’ at the stage when it appoints a resolution professional under Section 97(5) of the IBC is rejected. No such adjudicatory function is contemplated at that stage. To read in such a requirement at that stage would be to rewrite the statute which is impermissible in the exercise of judicial review;

¶44

(iv) The resolution professional may exercise the powers vested under Section 99(4) of the IBC for the purpose of examining the application for insolvency resolution and to seek information on matters relevant to the application in order to facilitate the submission of the report recommending the acceptance or rejection of the application;

¶45

(v) There is no violation of natural justice under Section 95 to Section 100 of the IBC as the debtor is not deprived of an opportunity to participate in the process of the examination of the application by the resolution professional;

¶46

(vi) No judicial determination takes place until the adjudicating authority decides under Section 100 whether to accept or reject the application. The report of the resolution professional is only recommendatory in nature and hence does not bind the adjudicatory authority when it exercises its jurisdiction under Section 100;

¶47

CP(IB)256(CHE)2022 State bank of India-vs-Padmashree Page 4 of 6

¶48

(vii) The adjudicatory authority must observe the principles of natural justice when it exercises jurisdiction under Section 100 for the purpose of determining whether to accept or reject the application;

¶49

(viii) The purpose of the interim-moratorium under Section 96 is to protect the debtor from further legal proceedings; and

¶50

(ix) The provisions of Section 95 to Section 100 of the IBC are not unconstitutional as they do not violate Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution.

¶51

Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that no judicial adjudication is

¶52

involved at the stages envisaged in Sections 95 to Section 99 of the IBC and also there is no violation of natural justice under Section 95 to Section 100 of the IBC as the debtor is not deprived of an opportunity to participate in the process of the examination of the application by the resolution professional. The Respondent / Personal Guarantor will be given an opportunity to file a reply once the RP has filed his Report under Section 99 of IBC, 2016.

¶53

Considering the above facts and the case supra, we appoint the

¶54

Resolution Professional who will collate all the facts relevant to the examination of the application for the commencement of the Insolvency Resolution Process in respect of the Personal Guarantor.

¶55

In the instant case, the Applicant has proposed the name of the

¶56

Resolution Professional “ Shri M Kavitha Surana ” with Registration no.

¶57

CP(IB)256(CHE)2022

¶58

State bank of India-vs-Padmashree Page 5 of 6

¶59

IBBI/IPA-002/IP-N00166/2017-18/10435 e-mail [email protected]

¶60

.We therefore, upon verification of disciplinary status with IBBI portal

¶61

found having valid AFA until 22.11.2024 and currently has no disciplinary proceedings. Hence we appoint “ Shri M Kavitha Surana ” as Resolution Professional in respect of the Personal Guarantor / Respondent.

¶62

The Resolution Professional is directed to examine the application

¶63

as set out in Section 97(6) of IBC, 2016 who after examining, may recommend for the acceptance / rejection of the application as provided under Section 97(6) of IBC, 2016, within a period of 10 days as

¶64

contemplated under Section 99(1) of IBC, 2016.

¶65