In re D. Manuel Anand (NCLT Chennai)
Summary: The Applicant, a Personal Guarantor to Servo Craft HR Solutions Private Limited, filed a petition under Section 94(1) of the IBC seeking initiation of his insolvency resolution process. The Respondent Bank opposed the application, contending that an earlier Section 94 petition had been withdrawn pursuant to an OTS, that material liabilities were suppressed, and that the fresh proceedings were intended to obstruct recovery under the SARFAESI Act. The Tribunal held that withdrawal of the earlier application after settlement of one loan account did not, by itself, create a statutory bar to a fresh Section 94 application concerning subsisting liabilities. It further held that pending SARFAESI or other recovery proceedings did not, by themselves, make the application non-maintainable. The Tribunal observed that disputes concerning the extent of liabilities, alleged suppression and quantum of debt could be examined by the Resolution Professional under Sections 97 and 99. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Dilip B Jiwrajka Vs. Union of India & Ors., the Tribunal appointed Sowmya Parasuraman as Resolution Professional and directed examination of the petition and submission of the report under Section 99.
Section 94 Petition by Personal Guarantor
The petition was filed under Section 94(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Rule 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority for Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtors) Rules, 2019.
