Raj Rani Gupta Personal Guarantor Of ... vs Saurabh Chawla Resolution ...

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal29 August 2025Ashok Bhushan

CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 576 of 2025

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

On the condonation applications: where the appeal is filed beyond the limitation period, the day on which the impugned order was delivered is excluded in computing the limitation period for filing the appeal, and the time taken to obtain a certified copy of the order is a matter for explanation under the condonation application, which the court may accept as sufficient cause to condone delay. On the consolidation of personal insolvency proceedings against personal guarantors: an application for consolidation of personal guarantor insolvency proceedings cannot succeed where the personal insolvency proceeding is no longer pending before the Adjudicating Authority, so that the Adjudicating Authority's refusal of such consolidation discloses no error. On termination of personal insolvency for failure to submit a repayment plan: where the Resolution Professional reports that repeated opportunities to submit a repayment plan have failed, and requests termination, the Adjudicating Authority may rightly allow termination of the personal insolvency, and an appeal challenging such termination is dismissed where an order under Section 112 has been passed in the matter. On the rejection of a personal guarantor's application where creditors have rejected the repayment plan and a Section 112 report has been filed: where creditors have rejected the repayment plan and a report under Section 112 has been filed, it is not open to the personal guarantor to press a belated repayment proposal, the offer being far short of the debt due, and an appeal against such an order is to be decided subject to any orders passed under Section 112.

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

Judgment

As delivered

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHICompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 576 of 2025& I.A. No. 2182, 2205 of 2025In the matter of:

Raj Rani Gupta ....Appellant Vs.

Saurabh Chawla, RP & Ors. ...Respondents For Appellant Mr. Arnav Vidyarthi, Advocate. For Respondents Mr. Abhishek Anand, Mr. Karan Kohli and Ms. Palak Kalra, Advocates for RP a/w Mr. Saurabh Chawla-RP in person.

WITH Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 583 of 2025 & I.A. No. 2238 of 2025

In the matter of:

Devendra Gupta ....Appellant Vs.

WITH Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 591 of 2025 & I.A. No. 2277 of 2025

In the matter of:

Paras Gupta ....Appellant Vs.

WITH Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 642 of 2025 & I.A. No. 2496 of 2025 In the matter of:

Raj Rani Gupta ....Appellant Vs.

Saurabh Chawla, RP ...Respondent For Appellant Mr. Arnav Vidyarthi, Advocate. For Respondent Mr. Abhishek Anand, Mr. Karan Kohli and Ms. Palak Kalra, Advocates for RP a/w Mr. Saurabh Chawla-RP in person.

WITH Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 648 of 2025 & I.A. No. 2518 of 2025

In the matter of:

Devendra Gupta ....Appellant Vs.

WITH Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 660 of 2025 & I.A. No. 2568 of 2025

In the matter of:

Prateek Gupta ....Appellant Vs.

WITH Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 694 of 2025 & I.A. No. 2677 of 2025 In the matter of:

Sudha Gupta ....Appellant Vs.

Deераk Mittal, RP ...Respondent For Appellant Mr. Arnav Vidyarthi, Advocate. For Respondent Mr. Abhishek Anand, Mr. Karan Kohli and Ms. Palak Kalra, Advocates for RP a/w Mr. Saurabh Chawla-RP in person.

WITH Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 695 of 2025 & I.A. No. 2679 of 2025 In the matter of:

Vishnu Bhagwan, ....Appellant Personal Guarantor of Our Co. Infrastructure Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Vs.

Deepak Mittal, RP ...Respondent For Appellant Mr. Arnav Vidyarthi, Advocate. For Respondent Mr. Abhishek Anand, Mr. Karan Kohli and Ms. Palak Kalra, Advocates for RP a/w Mr. Saurabh Chawla-RP in person.

WITH Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 730 of 2025 & I.A. No. 2768 of 2025 In the matter of:

Paras Gupta Vs. ....Appellant Vs.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

29.08.2025: IA Nos. 2205, 2238, 2277 of 2025

These are the applications praying for condonation of 15 days delay in

filing the appeal. We need to refer to the facts in IA No. 2205 of 2025 in CA

(AT) (Ins) No. 576 of 2025, order impugned was passed on 20.12.2024 and the

appeal has been e-filed on 17.02.2025. The appellant applied for certified copy

of the order on 26.12.2024 which was ready on 08.01.2025. In the Rejoinder-

Affidavit filed to the delay condonation application, appellant has given the

detailed computation of period as well as time which are excludable in

paragraph- 5 of the Rejoinder-Affidavit; ld. Counsel for the respondent

submitted that appeal was filed on 46th day since 20.12.2024 on which date

the order was passed has also to be included. The day on which order was

delivered has to be excluded from computing the limitation for filing the

appeal. We thus are of the view that delay in filing the appeal is only 15 days.

Counsel for the respondent further submitted that there is no explanation

given in the application for condonation of delay which submission is also not

correct. Paragraph-3 & 4 refers to explanation for delay in filing the appeal of

15 days. We thus are satisfied that sufficient case has been made out for

condonation of the delay. Delay condoned. 15 days delay in filing the appeal

is condoned. Applications are disposed of accordingly.

I.A. No. 2568, 2679, 2677, 2496, 2518 & 2768 of 2025

2. These are the applications praying for condonation of 15 days delay in

filing the appeal. The order was passed on 08.01.2025 the appeal was filed on Page 4 of 7 CA (AT) (Ins) Nos. 576, 583, 591, 642, 648, 660, 694, 695 & 730 of 2025 5

12.03.2025 and 13.03.2025. Certified copy has been applied on 15.01.2025

which was ready on 03.02.2025. Counsel for the appellant submits that delay

in filing the appeal is only 15 days. We find sufficient cause shown in

paragraph- 3 & 4. Delay condoned. Applications are disposed of accordingly.

No one appears for the respondent.

3. CA (AT)(Ins) Nos. 576/2025, 583/2025 & 591/2025 have been filed

challenging the order dated 20.12.2024 by which Adjudicating Authority has

rejected the application for consolidation of personal guarantors insolvency.

Adjudicating Authority held that the personal insolvency is no more pending

so as to consolidate the application, we do not find any error in the said order.

Ld. Counsel for the respondent pointed out that an order has also been passed

under Section 112 of the IBC in view of the aforesaid, we are of the view that

appellant is not entitled for any relief. Appeals are dismissed.

4. CA (AT)(Ins) Nos. 642/2025, 648/2025, 660/2025 and 730/2025 have

been filed against the order dated 08.01.2025 where the repayment plans were

not considered and applications filed by the appellant were rejected. By

08.01.2025 the personal insolvency was terminated aggrieved by which order

the appeals have been filed. Ld. Counsel for the RP submits that despite

repeated opportunities no repayment plans could be submitted hence the RP

has no option except to request for termination which was rightly allowed. It

is further submitted that now an order of Section 112 has been passed in view

of the aforesaid, no relief can be granted to the appellant. Appeals are

dismissed.

Page 5 of 7 CA (AT) (Ins) Nos. 576, 583, 591, 642, 648, 660, 694, 695 & 730 of 2025 6

5. CA (AT)(Ins) Nos. 694/2025 & 695/2025: These appeals have been

filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 08.01.2025 by which order

the Adjudicating order has rejected the application filed by the personal

guarantor the IA No. 5729 of 2024. The Adjudicating Authority after

considering the application has taken the view that the creditors have rejected

the repayment plan and report under Section 112 has already filed. The prayer

of appellant to consolidate the personal insolvency could not have considered

hence the IA No. 5729 of 2024 in paragraph 10 the Adjudicating Authority

directed as follows:-

"10. From the order it is clear that we had taken a view that it was for the creditors who could belatedly raise their claim and whose claim was not entertained by RP to raise the grievance and it was no open to guarantor to raise such plea. Besides we may not be oblivious of the fact that the guarantor could offer to repay only Rs. 15 lacs which is not even fraction of the debt repayable to the Applicant in IB- 705/ND/2022. The IA stands disposed of in terms of the para 8 above."

6. The Adjudicating Authority has noted that in the impugned order in

para-6 that liability indicated was Rs.7,74,72,75,024.54 whereas the

repayment plan was initially given was only Rs.15 lacs. The Adjudicating

Authority disposed of the both these applications. Ld. Counsel for the

appellant further submits that now order is under Section 112 has been

reserved with respect to personal guarantors in these two appeals. We do not

find any error in the order 08.01.2025 in which IA No. 5729 of 2024 has been

disposed of and another IA was rejected. The order having been reserved in

Page 6 of 7 CA (AT) (Ins) Nos. 576, 583, 591, 642, 648, 660, 694, 695 & 730 of 2025 7

Section 112 application we only observe that decision of this appeal shall abide

by any orders passed under Section 112. Both the appeals dismissed subject

to above.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) harleen /NN

Page 7 of 7 CA (AT) (Ins) Nos. 576, 583, 591, 642, 648, 660, 694, 695 & 730 of 2025

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