Calcutta HC Confirms KMC Can Revise Property Valuation to Levy Tax In ?11.24 Crore Dispute  ||  Bom HC Cancels Bail of Accused Supplying Fake Medicines, Says it Weakens Public Trust in Healthcare  ||  MP HC: Oral, Anal Sex Between Married Couples Not Punishable under Section 377 IPC  ||  SC Says Respect For Higher Court Orders a Basic Principle, Rebukes Authority For Revisiting Order  ||  SC: Merits of Foreign Arbitral Awards Cannot be Re-Examined During Enforcement Proceedings  ||  SC: Failure to Sign Charge Sheet Doesn’t Invalidate Trial if Charges Were Properly Read to Accused  ||  Delhi HC: Bipolar Disorder Alone Does Not Qualify as Medical Disability Without Benchmark Criteria  ||  Kerala HC: Excommunicating Knanaya Catholics For Marrying Outside the Community is Unconstitutional  ||  Kerala HC: Temporary Use of Religious Land For Public Infrastructure is Not a ‘Transfer’ under Law  ||  P&H HC: Habeas Plea in Child Custody Case Not Maintainable if Child is With Natural Guardian and Safe    

Mr. Ankit Miglani vs. State Bank Of India - (NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) (19 Apr 2023)

Application against the personal guarantor has to be filed before the Adjudicating Authority under whose jurisdiction, registered office of the Corporate Debtor is situated

Mr. Ankit Miglani vs. State Bank Of India

Insolvency

Present Appeal has been filed by the Appellant challenging order passed by National Company Law Tribunal, by which on an Application under Section 95 sub-section (1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) filed by State bank of India (Respondent), the Adjudicating Authority has declared commencement of moratorium under Section 96(1)(a) of the IBC and has appointed an Insolvency Resolution Professional ("IRP") as Resolution Professional ("RP"). The Appellant, a personal guarantor of Corporate Debtor, Uttam Galva Metallics Limited aggrieved by the said order, filed present Appeal.

Earlier CIRP, which was initiated against the Corporate Debtor in NCLT, Chandigarh Bench was transferred by order of the Principal Bench to NCLT Mumbai Bench, which CIRP was heard along with another CIRP of an associate Company pending before the NCLT Mumbai Bench, namely - Uttam Value Steels Limited. Both proceedings were completed by approving the Resolution Plan and as on date when Application under Section 95 has been filed against the Appellant, no CIRP was pending against the Corporate Debtor at NCLT Mumbai Bench. Under Section 60 sub-section (2), insolvency resolution process against the personal guarantor can be filed before the NCLT where CIRP is pending.

When no CIRP is pending in the NCLT Mumbai Bench, Section 60, sub- section (2) has no application in the present case. The facts that once upon a time CIRP against the Corporate Debtor was undertaken by the NCLT Mumbai Bench under order of transfer from the Principal Bench, will not preclude the jurisdiction of NCLT Chandigarh Bench for Application against the personal guarantor. The Application against the personal guarantor by virtue of Section 60 sub-section (1) has to be filed before the Adjudicating Authority under whose jurisdiction, registered office of the Corporate Debtor is situated. There is no dispute between the parties that registered office of the Corporate Debtor is situated in the State of Haryana and it is the NCLT Chandigarh, which has jurisdiction to consider any Application against the personal guarantor, such as Appellant.

On the date, when Section 95 Application was filed before the Adjudicating Authority, i.e., 23.06.2021, no insolvency resolution was pending against the Corporate Debtor before NCLT Mumbai. Hence, Section 60 sub-section (2) could not have been invoked. NCLT Mumbai Bench had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain Section 95 Application filed by the State Bank of India against the Appellant. The jurisdiction to entertain Section 95, sub-section (1) Application was only before the NCLT under whose jurisdiction the registered office of the Corporate Debtor is situated, which in the present case happens to be NCLT Chandigarh. The order passed by the Adjudicating Authority is set aside. Appeal allowed.

Tags : COMMENCEMENT   MORATORIUM   JURISDICTION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved