In the matter of Orbis Trusteeship Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Gurneet Singh Sikka,

ORAL ORDER IA-187/ND/2025: The RP preferred IA-187/2025 under Section 106 of IBC, 2016. The prayer made in the application reads: “a. Allow the present Application. b. Pass necessary Orders for the initiation of the Insolvency Resolution Process of the Respondent under Chapter IV of the Code. c. Pass any such order(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit in the interest of justice.” 2. The RP preferred the report/application under Section 99 of IBC, 2016. The report/recommendation made by the RP for admission of the application preferred under Section 95(1) of IBC, 2016 was accepted in terms of the order dated 05.11.2024 and the application preferred under Section 95(1) of the Code was admitted. The relevant excerpt of the order dated 05.11.2024 reads thus:

Abhijat/Hetash

Abhijat/Hetash

3. The Applicant preferred IA-187/2025 espousing that the PG namely Mr. Gurneet Singh Sikka has not extended any co-operation to RP and did not respond to the missives sent by RP to him. The RP has taken the stand that no repayment plan has been received by him from the PG/debtor. The averments to the effect have been made in paras 8 to 16 of IA-187/2025. The paras read thus:

Abhijat/Hetash

Abhijat/Hetash

Abhijat/Hetash

4. As can be seen from the provisions of proviso to Section 106(2) of IBC, 2016, for the recorded reason the RP may avoid calling the meeting of the creditors. The Section 106(2) of IBC, 2016 reads thus: “106. Report of resolution professional on repayment plan. – […] (2)The report referred in sub-section (1) shall include that- (a) the repayment plan is in compliance with the provisions of any law for the time being in force; (b) the repayment plan has a reasonable prospect of being approved and implemented; and (c) there is a necessity of summoning a meeting of the creditors, if required, to consider the repayment plan: Provided that where the resolution professional recommends that a meeting of the creditors is not required to be summoned, reasons for the same shall be provided.”

5. As per proviso of Section 114(1) of the Code, where a meeting of the creditors is not summoned, the Adjudicating Authority shall pass an order on basis of the report prepared by the Resolution Professional under Section 106 of the Code. The Section 114(1) of the Code reads thus: “114. Order of Adjudicating Authority on repayment plan. – (1) The Adjudicating Authority shall by an order approve or reject the repayment plan on the basis of the report of the meeting of the creditors submitted by the resolution professional under section 112: Provided that where a meeting of creditors is not summoned, the Adjudicating Authority shall pass an order on the basis of the report prepared by the resolution professional under section 106.”

Abhijat/Hetash

6. The conjoint reading of provisos to Section 114(1) and Section 106(2) of the Code gives an impression that this tribunal may pass an order either on the basis of the report under Section 112 of IBC, 2016 or the report under Section 106(2) of the Code. However, an amendment was carried in IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantor to Corporate Debtor), Regulations 2019 and in terms of the proviso of Regulations 17A of the Regulations, the meeting of creditors is required to be summoned even when no repayment plan is offered by the debtor. Nevertheless, such meeting is required only to notify non-availability of the repayment plan. Even otherwise also when any anomaly between the provisions of the Regulations framed by IBBI and the provisions of IBC, 2016, is there, we need to give credence to the provisions of IBC which is an act of the Parliament. As has been noted hereinabove, no repayment plan has been offered by the PG, thus the RP filed his report indicating the position to the effect. Apparently, the ramification of non-availability of the resolution plan would be same as that of rejection of the repayment plan by the creditors, thus the same consequences as are of rejection of repayment plan would follow. 7. In the aforesaid circumstances and in due deference to the proviso to the provisions of Section 114(1) of the Code, we direct the closure of the Insolvency Resolution Process. It would be for the creditor to take the call regarding initiation of the proceedings under of Section 114 & 115 (2) read with Section 121 & 123 of IBC, 2016. Subject to aforementioned order, the present application is disposed of.

/- Sd/- Sd/-Sd/- (ATUL CHAT URVEDI) (ASHOK KUMAR BHARDWAJ) MEMBER (T) MEMBER (J)

Abhijat/Hetash