National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Dismisses Appeal of Personal Guarantor in Insolvency Case — Application Found to Frustrate Recovery Proceedings. The court determined that the application under Section 94 was filed to obstruct recovery efforts rather than for genuine insolvency resolution.

Tribunals: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Bench: New Delhi
  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appeal was filed by the personal guarantor of a corporate debtor challenging the dismissal of his application under Section 94 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The corporate debtor, M/s Veer Wires Private Limited, had availed various credit facilities from Abhyudaya Cooperative Bank Ltd., which were later classified as non-performing assets. The appellant executed a personal guarantee deed and was subsequently called upon to repay the outstanding dues after the corporate debtor failed to meet its financial obligations. The appellant's first application under Section 94 was dismissed for lack of documentation, and after the moratorium lapsed, he filed a second application, which was also dismissed by the adjudicating authority on grounds of bad faith. The court noted that the appellant had not made any genuine attempts to repay the debt and had only filed the application to delay the recovery process. The court emphasized that the provisions of the Code should not be misused to frustrate recovery efforts. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed as lacking merit, with the court affirming the lower authority's findings regarding the appellant's intent (Paras 1-36).

Headnote

A) Insolvency Law - Personal Guarantee - Application under Section 94 - Intent of Application - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 94 - The court held that the application was not filed for genuine insolvency resolution but to obstruct recovery proceedings initiated by the financial creditor. The appellant's actions indicated an intent to misuse the provisions of the Code to stall lawful recovery efforts (Paras 11-34).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the application under Section 94 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was filed in good faith or to obstruct recovery proceedings.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower authority's decision that the application under Section 94 was not filed in good faith and was intended to frustrate recovery efforts by the financial creditor.

Law Points

  • Insolvency resolution
  • personal guarantee
  • SARFAESI Act
  • bona fide application
  • interim moratorium
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (NCLAT) (09) 66

CA (AT) (Ins) No. 1335 of 2026

2026-09-07

Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan, Naresh Salecha

Ms. Eshna Kumar, Ms. Sabari Kirubakaran, Ms. Artha Agrawal

Pankaj Chhabildas Sheth

Abhyudaya Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against the dismissal of an application under Section 94 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Remedy Sought

The appellant sought to initiate insolvency resolution proceedings.

Filing Reason

The appellant claimed the application was filed to propose a repayment plan.

Previous Decisions

The first application under Section 94 was dismissed as withdrawn due to lack of documentation.

Issues

Whether the application under Section 94 was filed in good faith. Whether the appellant's actions constituted an abuse of process.

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant argued that the earlier application was genuine and withdrawn only due to technical reasons. The respondent contended that the application was filed to obstruct recovery proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 should not be misused to obstruct lawful recovery proceedings initiated by creditors.

Judgment Excerpts

The court held that the application was not filed for genuine insolvency resolution but to obstruct recovery proceedings initiated by the financial creditor. The appellant's actions indicated an intent to misuse the provisions of the Code to stall lawful recovery efforts. The appeal was dismissed as lacking merit.

Procedural History

The appellant filed an application under Section 94 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which was dismissed as withdrawn. A second application was filed and subsequently dismissed by the adjudicating authority, leading to the current appeal.

Acts & Sections

  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: Section 61, Section 94, Section 96, Section 99
  • SARFAESI Act, 2002: Section 13, Section 14
  • Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002: Section 84
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Appellants' Challenge in Pension Dispute Case — Clarifies Pensionary Benefits for Absorbed Employees.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Appeal in Corporate Summons Service Case — Validity of Service on Non-Authorized Personnel Questioned. The court found that service on a mere office assistant did not meet the requirements of valid service under the Code of Civ...