The Chennai National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) consisted of Justice M. Venugopal and Shreesha Merla (Technical) stated that the `Date of Filing’ of the ‘Application’, under Section 95 of IBC is, what is to be taken into account and not the date when the Application is numbered. There is no appreciable evidence on record to state that the said `Application’ was `defective’.
The fact is that the ‘Appellant (Union Bank of India), filed an ‘Application’ against the ‘Personal Guarantor’ of the ‘Corporate Debtor’ (M/s. Tebma Shipyard Limited), under Section 95 of the Insolvency Bankruptcy Code (IBC) 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.’
While the “second Respondent”/”State Bank of India” filed a similar Section 95 Application on December 31, 2021, against the same “Personal Guarantor,” Mr. P.K. Balasubramanian, which was registered on January 12, 2022, it was overlooked that the “Appellant”/”Union Bank of India” had filed a similar “Application” against the same Respondent on December 31, 2021.
The Appellant’s `Application’ filed on 31.12.2021, was assigned a Registration No. by the Registry, belatedly on 09.02.2022 and was posted before the `Adjudicating Authority’.
The Counsel for the “Appellant” asserted at the virtual hearing on June 7, 2012, that the “Adjudicating Authority” had noted that a “Insolvency Resolution Process” (IRP) would be appointed and the “Report” would be requested to determine whether or not the “Application” was admissible.
However, in the present case, though the Section 95 of IBC, the application was filed on 31.12.2021 and was assigned a Registration Number and SBI had filed an `Application’ on 03.01.2022, the `Registry’, had registered the application of SBI, on 12.01.2022 and that of Union Bank of India on 09.02.2022.
The bench also ruled that all of the “Personal Guarantor’s” creditors are taken care of in the Chapter-III proceedings when a “Insolvency Resolution Process” is initiated against the “Personal Guarantor.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
