UCO Bank Vs Smt. Nishu Goel (NCLAT Delhi)
NCLAT Delhi held that based on recommendation made by the resolution professional, application under section 95 of IBC, 2016 is admitted. Notably, also held that application under section 95 is preferred within prescribed time limit.
Facts- Smt. Nishu Goel and Mr. Ajay Goel i.e. the Personal Guarantors stood as surety qua the financial facility extended by UCO Bank to the Principal Debtor i.e. M/s VCRM Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. The deed of guarantee was executed on 31.05.2017. The account of Principal Debtor was declared as NPA on 31.03.2018 and a notice dated 29.10.2018 u/s. 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was issued by the Creditor to the Principal Debtor as well as to the two Personal Guarantors. As the sequence of the said notice, the creditor could take possession of assets owned by Smt. Nishu Goel and could sell the same on 15.11.2019.
Thereafter, the Principal Debtor was admitted to CIRP and as no resolution plan was received for revival of same, by Insolvency Resolution Professional (RP), the Corporate Debtor was ordered to be liquidated. On sale of the assets by the Liquidator, the Creditor could receive certain amount of debt on 05.02.2022, 15.08.2022 & 15.06.2022, in terms of the provisions of Section 53 of the IBC, 2016. Nevertheless, as the entire amount of debt was not satisfied, the Creditor could serve notice dated 02.11.2023, in terms of the provisions of Rule 7(1) of I&B (Application to Adjudicating Authority for Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantor to Corporate Debtor) Rules 2019.
