Tribunal Appoints Interim Resolution Professional for Insolvency Case

The Tribunal appointed an Interim Resolution Professional to oversee the case filed under Section 95(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against the Personal Guarantors of a Corporate Debtor under Liquidation. The Respondent's defense claiming the application was time-barred due to discrepancies in the date of default was considered. Following principles from a relevant judgment, the Tribunal appointed Mr. Chandrasekhar Sagutoor as the Interim Resolution Professional to examine the application and provide a recommendation for its acceptance or rejection within a specified timeframe. Further proceedings were scheduled for the Resolution Professional's report.

---

---

Issues:
1. Application filed under Section 95(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against Personal Guarantors of a Corporate Debtor under Liquidation.
2. Barred by limitation due to discrepancy in the date of default.
3. Appointment of Interim Resolution Professional and further proceedings.

Analysis:

1. The application under Section 95(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was filed against the Personal Guarantors of a Corporate Debtor under Liquidation. The Corporate Debtor had already undergone the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) and was subsequently ordered for liquidation. The application was filed by the Central Bank of India, Stressed Asset Management Branch, against the Personal Guarantors, seeking to initiate proceedings against them.

2. The Respondent raised a defense claiming that the application was barred by limitation due to discrepancies in the date of default. The Respondent argued that the Applicant incorrectly stated the date of default as 27.06.2019, relying on a Recovery Certificate issued by the Presiding Officer of DRT - 2 Chennai. The Respondent contended that if the date of default is considered as the date when the assets of the Corporate Debtor were declared as Non-Performing Assets (NPA) on 10.09.2013, then the application would be time-barred.

3. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both parties and referred to a judgment by the Hon'ble NCLAT in a similar matter. Following the principles outlined in the judgment, the Tribunal appointed an Interim Resolution Professional to oversee the case. Mr. Chandrasekhar Sagutoor was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional, and the Financial Creditor was directed to serve a copy of the application to the Interim Resolution Professional for preparing a report under Section 99 of the IBC, 2016. The Resolution Professional was tasked with examining the application and providing a recommendation for its acceptance or rejection within a specified timeframe. The matter was scheduled for further proceedings on a specific date for the filing of the Resolution Professional's report.

---