State Bank of India Vs Dr. Renuka Rani Maganti (NCLT Amravati)
NCLT Amravati held that application filed by SBI (creditor) u/s. 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for initiation of insolvency procedure dismissed as demand notice not served to Personal Guarantor on correct address.
Facts-
The Present Application is filed u/s. 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 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 by State Bank of India (Applicant/ Creditor) for the purpose of initiating Insolvency Process against Dr. Renuka Rani Maganti (Personal Guarantor) for a default amount of Rs.129,58,95,550.79/-.
Conclusion-
It is “clearer than crystal” that the report of the Resolution Professional is completely silent on the service of the Demand Notice dated 17.08.2021, relied on by the Resolution Professional himself. Therefore, when non-compliance of subsection (4) of section 95 I&B Code, 2016 is ex facie, apparent and unequivocal, it is strange that the Resolution Professional had ventured to recommend the ‘admission’ of the present application, which in my considered opinion is a sheer mechanical act and due to non-application of mind.
Held that the applicant/ creditor failed in establishing compliance of subsection (4)(a) of section 95 I&B Code, 2016. As such the “debt” as claimed under the impugned Guarantee Agreement does not “exist” as on the date of filing of the present application.
