Bhumika Nilay Shah vs State Bank Of India

IN THE MATTER OF: Nilay R. Shah ...Appellant Versus State Bank of India & Anr. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Present but appearance not marked.

For Respondents : Mr. Siddharth Sangal and Mr. Chirag Sharma, Advocates for R-1/SBI.

Mr. Atul Sharma and Mr. Vikram Choudhary, Advocates for R-2/IRP.

WITH

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 2009 of 2024 & I.A. No. 7408, 7528 of 2024

IN THE MATTER OF: Bhumika Nilay Shah ...Appellant Versus State Bank of India & Anr. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Present but appearance not marked.

For Respondents : Mr. Siddharth Sangal and Mr. Chirag Sharma, Advocates for R-1/SBI.

Mr. Atul Sharma and Mr. Vikram Choudhary, Advocates for R-2/IRP. WITH

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1956 of 2024

IN THE MATTER OF: Anjana Sunil Mishra ...Appellant Versus State Bank of India & Anr. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Present but appearance not marked.

For Respondents : Mr. Siddharth Sangal and Mr. Chirag Sharma, Advocates for R-1/SBI.

Mr. Atul Sharma and Mr. Vikram Choudhary, Advocates for R-2/IRP.

WITH

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1957 of 2024

IN THE MATTER OF: Sunil Mishra ...Appellant Versus State Bank of India & Anr. ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant : Present but appearance not marked.

For Respondents : Mr. Siddharth Sangal and Mr. Chirag Sharma, Advocates for R-1/SBI.

Mr. Atul Sharma and Mr. Vikram Choudhary, Advocates for R-2/IRP.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

29.10.2024 : These Appeals have been filed challenging the Order dated

05.08.2024 passed by the Learned Adjudicating Authority (National Company

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1997, 2009, 1956 & 1957 of 2024 2 of 4 Law Tribunal, Ahmedabad, Division Bench, Court - 1), admitting Section 95

Application filed by the State Bank of India.

2. Appellants before us are the Personal Guarantors. On the Application

under Section 95, Resolution Professional (RP) was appointed who submitted

the Report. Appellant also filed objection to the Report which after

consideration under Section 100 has been admitted.

3. Learned Counsel for the Appellant challenging the Order contends that

the Guarantee which was given by the Personal Guarantor was only limited

Guarantee as per Clause 24 of the Deed of Guarantee. It is submitted that in

view of the limited Guarantee, the amount claim under Section 95 was not

payable.

4. Learned Counsel for the Respondent replying the submission of the

Appellant contends that the issue of the extent of Guarantee given by the

Personal Guarantor is to be examined and decided at the time of finalisation

of the payment Plan and the said cannot be a ground for challenging the Order

admitting Section 95 Application. He further submits that the DRT in its

Order has already crystallised the dues.

5. We have considered the submissions of Counsel for the Parties and

perused the record.

6. The submission on which Appellant is challenging the Order of Section

95 is the ground of limited Guarantee. The Application has only been

admitted and the payments Plan have yet to be finalised. The said question

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1997, 2009, 1956 & 1957 of 2024 3 of 4 is to be looked into by the Adjudicating Authority at the time of finalisation of

the payment Plan.

With these observations, we dismiss the Appeal.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

[Arun Baroka] Member (Technical) himanshu/nn

Comp. App. (AT) (Ins.) No. 1997, 2009, 1956 & 1957 of 2024 4 of 4