Gaurav Aggarwal vs Religare Finvest Ltd
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 215 of 2018
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where the record contains no evidence that a person has given a personal guarantee to the lender, that person cannot claim the benefit of the moratorium in respect of his own property merely on the footing that he is a personal guarantor; the absence of such a guarantee in the record is sufficient to reject the claim.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Gaurav Aggarwal ...Appellant
Vs
Religare Finvest Ltd. ....Respondent
Present: For Appellant: Present but appearance not marked.
For Respondent: Mr. Sanjeev Singh and Ms. Anandita Singh, Advocates.
ORDER
31.07.2018: The Appellant - 'Mr. Gaurav Aggarwal' filed an application before the Adjudicating Authority for declaration that he is the personal guarantor and therefore, the order of moratorium will be also applicable to the personal property which belong to 'Mr. Gaurav Aggarwal'. The said application was rejected by the Adjudicating Authority by impugned order dated 23rd April, 2018 in view of the stand taken by the Respondent that the Appellant is a 'Co- Borrower', not a 'Personal Guarantor'.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant referred to the demand notice dated 15.01.2018 issued by Respondent under Section 13(2) of 'The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002' (SARFAESI Act) to suggest that the said notice has been issued on both the Corporate Debtor and the Appellant - 'Mr. Gaurav Aggarwal'. In respect to the same, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent rightly pointed out that Mr. Gaurav Aggarwal was a Co-Borrower with the Corporate Debtor and for the said reason the Corporate Debtor has been shown as 'Applicant' and Mr. Gaurav Aggarwal and others have been shown as Co-applicants.
-2- 3. There is nothing on record to suggest that Appellant - 'Mr. Gaurav Aggarwal' has given any personal guarantee to the 'Religare Finvest Limited' at the time of taking loan by 'Allied Strips Ltd.', therefore, the applicant cannot take advantage of the moratorium in respect to property owned by him but are covered under Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002.
4. In absence of any merit, the appeal is dismissed. No cost.
[Justice S. J. Mukhopadhaya] Chairperson
[Justice Bansi Lal Bhat] Member (Judicial) am/uk
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 215 of 2018
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free