TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 10X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was never served upon them. The material on record shows that the Personal Guarantor was represented on that date and therefore it cannot be said that the Appellant was not aware of the proceedings. The object behind the issuance of the limited Notice to the Personal Guarantor is to appear before the Adjudicating Authority following the Principle of Natural Justice. The documentary evidence on record establishes that the Demand Notice dated 06/10/2021 was received by the Appellant on 12/10/2021. It is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that this Demand Notice, though received by them was sans the annexures and therefore is a defective one. The same was communicated to the Respondent Bank on 24/10/2021 and the Bank had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sh Talluri, Advocates For the Respondent : Mr. Vivek Sinha, Advocate JUDGEMENT [ Per : Shreesha Merla, Member (T) ] 1. This Appeal has been preferred against the Impugned Order dated 15/02/2022 passed by the Learned Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal New Delhi, Bench III) in (IB)-87(ND)/2022, declaring an Interim Moratorium in terms of Section 96 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, (hereinafter referred to as The Code ). The Appellant is the Personal Guarantor of M/s. ANG Companies Ltd. which is currently undergoing Liquidation. 2. It is the case of the Appellant Counsel that when the process of Liquidation of the Corporate Debtor was underway, the Appellant had received summons dated 15/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cating Authority has failed to ensure the issuance of limited Notice to the Application as contemplated under Section 95(1) of the Code. It is strenuously argued that in accordance with Section 60 (2) of the Code the said Application could only be heard by Bench No. VI of the NCLT, as the Liquidation Proceedings of the Corporate Debtor were pending before that Bench. 5. Learned Counsel for the Appellant placed reliance on these two Judgements in support of his case: AGI Logistics INC Anr. Vs. Mr. Sher Jang Bhadur Anr. , CS(OS) 1314/2009. Neeraj Jain Vs. Cloudwalker Streaming Technologies Private Limited and Ors. , Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1354 of 2019. 6. It is the case of the Respondent Bank that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d Notice issued by the Respondent Bank is defective. 9. This Tribunal in Mr. Ravi Ajeet Kulkarni Vs. State Bank of India , Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 316 of 2021 held that a Corporate Debtor is entitled for limited Notice by the Adjudicating Authority so that the Personal Guarantor is aware of the Proceedings. The relevant paras are reproduced as hereunder: 24. Section 95(5) requires the Creditor to provide copy of the application under sub-section (1) to the Debtor. This section needs to be read with Rule 3(1)(g) reproduced above. It is evident from reading the Section alongwith the Rule that what Creditor has to serve is copy of the application made under sub-section (1) to the Debtor. Reading Rule 7(2) with Rule 3 shows t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation under Section 100 which ought to be decided by giving hearing to parties keeping in view Application, evidence collected and report under Section 99. 10. It is the main case of the Appellant that the limited Notice contemplated under Section 95(1) of the Code was never served upon them. The material on record shows that the Personal Guarantor was represented on that date and therefore it cannot be said that the Appellant was not aware of the proceedings. The object behind the issuance of the limited Notice to the Personal Guarantor is to appear before the Adjudicating Authority following the Principle of Natural Justice. The documentary evidence on record establishes that the Demand Notice dated 06/10/2021 was received by the App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance of any limited Notice to the Appellant as he was aware of the proceedings . Morever the stage of admission of the Application has not yet come and at that stage, the Appellant can raise all the objections before the Adjudicating Authority opposing the admission of the said Application. Needless to add, the Adjudicating Authority will consider the pleas and pass Orders under Section 100 in accordance with law. The Judgements relied upon by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant are not applicable to the facts of the attendant case. 11. Lastly, we address to the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that Section 95 Application cannot be adjudicated by Bench No. III of the NCLT since the Liquidation Proceedings of the Cor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
