Miss Lucy
← All judgments

In the matter of Bank of Baroda vs. Raju Petta Hanumantha Kashturi Reddy,

National Company Law Tribunal11 January 2024

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Adjudicating Authority, having been moved by a financial creditor under Section 95(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, may appoint a Resolution Professional where the financial creditor has proposed one and the proposed professional has given written consent, and may direct that professional to examine the application within ten days and report under Section 99(1) recommending approval or rejection. On the commencement of the application, an interim moratorium under Section 96(1)(a) arises from the date of filing of the application by the financial creditor and ceases on the date of admission, during which any legal action or proceeding pending in respect of any debt against the personal guarantor is deemed stayed and creditors are barred from initiating fresh legal action or proceedings in respect of any debt.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL BENGALURU BENCH, BENGALURU (Through Physical Hearing / VC Mode (Hybrid)) ITEM No.05 C.P. (IB)No.206/BB/2022 IN THE MATTER OF: Bank of Baroda … Petitioner Vs. Smt. Raju Petta Hanumantha Kashturi Reddy … Respondent Order under Section 95 of IBC, 2016 Order delivered on 11.01.2024 CORAM: SHRI K. BISWAL HON’BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL) SHRI MANOJ KUMAR DUBEY HON’BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL) PRESENT: For the Petitioner : Ms. Natasha N. Murthy For the Respondent : Shri Gokul R. ORDER 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Counsel for the Respondent. 2. This is a Company Petition filed by Bank of Baroda (“the Financial Creditor”) U/s. 95(1) of the I&B Code, 2016 (Application to Adjudicating Authority for Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtors) Rules, 2019, seeking to initiate Insolvency Resolution Process against Smt. Raju Petta Hanumantha Kashturi Reddy (“the Personal Guarantor”). 3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the copy of the Demand Notice dated 15.11.2021 was successfully delivered upon the Personal Guarantor on 17.11.2021.

However, the Personal Guarantor has neither issued a response nor paid the amount due and payable by the Corporate Debtor. Further, a copy of the Petition along with notice was successfully delivered upon the Personal Guarantor on 31.05.2022 through e-mail, and thus the requirement u/s 95 of the Code is completed. 4. Since the Financial Creditor has proposed the name of the Resolution Professional in Part-IV of Form-C, this Bench hereby appoints Shri Ramratan Kanoongo, who is registered with IBBI as Insolvency Professional having Regn. No.IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P-00070/2017-18/10156, Mobile: 9821031996 email: info@headwayip.com as the Resolution Professional in the present matter. Written consent given by said RP in Form-A along with Affidavit dated 20.12.2021. The fee payable to RP shall be in accordance with the IBBI Regulations/Circulars/ Directions issued in this regard. 5. The Resolution Professional shall examine the Application within ten days from the date of appointment and submit his report to the Adjudicating Authority recommending for approval or rejection of the Application as referred under Section 99(1) of the Code.

6. The interim-moratorium under Section 96(1)(a) of the I&B Code, 2016 has commenced on the date of filing of this Application by the Financial Creditor and will cease to have effect on the date of admission. 7. During such interim-moratorium period – a. any legal action or proceeding pending in respect of any debt shall be deemed to have been stayed; and b. the creditors of the debtor shall not initiate any legal action or proceedings in respect of any debt. 8. The Resolution Professional is directed to serve a copy of his Report on the Personal Guarantor. 9. List the case on 23.02.2024.

-Sd- -Sd- (MANOJ KUMAR DUBEY) (K. BISWAL) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

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