Sh. Sumeet Juneja Vs Stressed Assets Stabilisation Fund (NCLAT Delhi)
NCLAT Delhi held that appellant as a personal guarantor, has been deliberately avoiding participation in the Section 95 proceedings. Accordingly, initiation of proceeding u/s. 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code against personal guarantor duly admitted by NCLT.
Facts- The present appeal arises from the Impugned Order dated 12.09.2024 passed by NCLT, Chandigarh Bench, whereby the application filed by Respondent No. 1–Stressed Assets Stabilisation Fund (SASF)–against the Appellant/Personal Guarantor of M/s Krishan Engineering Works Ltd. was admitted.
The Respondent No. 1 contended that the borrower company had availed financial facilities from it, for which the Appellant had executed a guarantee agreement dated 28.10.1994. Upon default by the borrower, the account was declared NPA on 31.10.1998. Thereafter, Respondent No. 1 filed application against both the borrower and the Personal Guarantor, which was allowed and a recovery certificate was issued on 23.01.2019. As the decretal amount remained unpaid, a demand notice dated 29.03.2022 was issued, followed by initiation of proceedings under Section 95 of the IBC. The NCLT, vide order dated 06.02.2024, admitted the application and appointed Respondent No. 2 as the Resolution Professional (RP). The RP filed application to place on record his report, which was disposed of on 18.03.2024 with a direction to file an affidavit confirming service of the report to both parties. Accordingly, Respondent No. 2 filed an affidavit dated 24.04.2024 affirming service to both the Creditor and the Appellant. As the Appellant failed to appear, he was proceeded ex-parte on 30.07.2024, arguments were heard, and the application was subsequently admitted vide the Impugned Order, giving rise to the present appeal.
