🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued soon
Home
2025 (6) TMI 1186 - AT - IBCAdmission of application filed u/s 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 - initiation of insolvency resolution process against a personal guarantor of a corporate debtor - personal guarantor was afforded adequate opportunity to file a reply to the RP s report - failure to file reply - HELD THAT - During the course of hearing Counsel for the Appellant could not explain as to what was the miscommunication because it is clearly found from the order dated 06.03.2024 that a period of 10 days sought by the Counsel for the Appellant was granted to file the reply to the report of the RP and on 08.04.2024 when neither appellant was present despite the fact that the case was passed over twice nor reply was filed yet the court thought it fit to grant some more time to file reply to the report of the RP but made it a last opportunity and a peremptory order was passed that if reply is not filed within a week then the right to file reply shall stand closed. Meaning thereby the order of closing the right to file reply came in to effect with the expiry of period of one week and for that matter no further order was required to be passed by the Court in that regard. Not only that the Appellant did not file reply to the report but also neither any application was filed for recalling of the order dated 08.04.2024 for getting some more time or even no effort was made to challenge the order dated 08.04.2024 in appeal as the said order was appealable in terms of Section 61 of the Code. Thus it appears that the Appellant was not only remiss in not filing the reply but also never wanted to file any reply much less objection to the recommendation of the RP for admission of the application filed under Section 95 of the Code. Conclusion - i) The admission of the insolvency application under Section 95 of the Code against the personal guarantor was valid and rightly upheld. ii) The personal guarantor was afforded adequate opportunity to file a reply to the RP s report; failure to do so and failure to challenge the closure order justified dismissal of the appeal. The lame excuse which has been raised in the present appeal is of no avail to the Appellant for challenging the well-considered order passed by the Tribunal - there are no merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in this appeal are:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Admission of Insolvency Application under Section 95 of the Code against Personal Guarantor The relevant legal framework includes Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which allows a financial creditor to initiate insolvency resolution process against a personal guarantor of a corporate debtor in case of default. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Application to Adjudicating Authority for Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtors) Rules, 2019 (Rules), and the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtors) Regulations, 2019 (Regulations) provide procedural and substantive guidelines for such applications. The RP's report under Section 99 of the Code confirmed that:
Based on these findings, the RP recommended admission of the insolvency application against the personal guarantor. The Tribunal, after considering the RP's report and the application, admitted the insolvency application under Section 95 of the Code. The Court applied the law to the facts by verifying that the statutory requirements for admission were met, including default by the corporate debtor and personal guarantor, and compliance with procedural norms. The appellant did not file any substantive objection or reply to the RP's report to contest the admission. The Court noted that the appellant's failure to respond effectively amounted to acceptance of the RP's findings. Issue 2: Opportunity to File Reply and Consequences of Non-Compliance The Tribunal granted the personal guarantor a 10-day opportunity on 06.03.2024 to file a reply to the RP's report. On the adjourned date of 08.04.2024, the personal guarantor was absent despite the matter being called twice, and no reply had been filed. The Tribunal then granted a final one-week extension to file the reply, warning that failure to do so would close the right to file any reply. The appellant did not avail of this final opportunity and did not challenge the order dated 08.04.2024, which closed the right to file a reply. The Tribunal emphasized that this order was appealable under Section 61 of the Code but remained unchallenged, thereby attaining finality. The appellant's contention of miscommunication between him and his counsel was found unsubstantiated, as the Court observed that ample time was granted and the appellant failed to explain the nature of the alleged miscommunication. The Court held that the appellant's failure to file a reply or challenge the closure order amounted to a waiver of the right to contest the RP's report. The Court applied the principle that procedural fairness requires parties to diligently exercise their rights and that failure to respond or challenge adverse orders within prescribed time frames leads to forfeiture of those rights. The appellant's inaction was treated as deliberate or negligent, and the excuse was rejected as "lame." Issue 3: Effect of Non-Challenge to Order Closing Right to File Reply The order dated 08.04.2024, which closed the right to file a reply after the final extension expired, was not appealed by the appellant. The Tribunal held that this order attained finality and could not be reopened in the present appeal challenging the admission order dated 25.06.2024. The Court reasoned that the appellant's failure to challenge the closure order or seek its recall demonstrated an intention not to contest the RP's report or the admission of the insolvency application. This procedural default was fatal to the appellant's case. The Tribunal emphasized that procedural rules under the Code and the Rules are mandatory and that litigants must comply with timelines and orders to ensure orderly adjudication. The appellant's failure to comply or challenge the order was a significant factor in dismissing the appeal. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Tribunal observed: "...the order of closing the right to file reply came into effect with the expiry of period of one week and for that matter no further order was required to be passed by the Court in that regard." "...the Appellant was not only remiss in not filing the reply but also never wanted to file any reply much less objection to the recommendation of the RP for admission of the application filed under Section 95 of the Code." "...The lame excuse which has been raised in the present appeal is of no avail to the Appellant for challenging the well-considered order passed by the Tribunal and hence, we do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed." The core principles established include:
Final determinations:
|