Appeal challenging Interim Moratorium Order dismissed for lack of objections within stipulated period.

The Tribunal dismissed the Appeal challenging the Order declaring an Interim Moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code against the Appellant, a Personal Guarantor. The Tribunal found that the Appellant was aware of the proceedings, received necessary documents, and did not raise objections within the stipulated period. Despite jurisdictional concerns, the Tribunal emphasized procedural compliance and refrained from expressing an opinion on the case's merits, allowing the Appellant to contest the Application's admission before the Adjudicating Authority.

---

---

Issues:
1. Appeal against Impugned Order declaring Interim Moratorium under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
2. Allegation of incomplete Demand Notice and initiation of Personal Insolvency against the Appellant.
3. Failure to ensure limited Notice under Section 95(1) of the Code and jurisdictional issues regarding the Adjudicating Authority.

Analysis:
1. The Appeal challenges an Order declaring an Interim Moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code against the Appellant, a Personal Guarantor of a company undergoing Liquidation. The Appellant contests the validity of the Demand Notice and the subsequent initiation of Personal Insolvency proceedings by the Respondent Bank.

2. The Appellant's Counsel argues that the Demand Notice issued by the Bank lacked necessary documents as mandated under Rule 7(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Rules. Despite the Appellant's objections and requests for complete documentation, the Bank allegedly failed to provide the required annexures, raising concerns about the adequacy of the Demand Notice.

3. The main issue revolves around the failure to issue a limited Notice under Section 95(1) of the Code to the Personal Guarantor, as emphasized in previous judgments. The Tribunal highlights the importance of providing advance notice to the Guarantor to ensure awareness of the proceedings and adherence to principles of natural justice. The Respondent Bank contends that the Appellant was duly served with the necessary documents and had prior knowledge of the proceedings, negating the claim of inadequate notice.

4. Additionally, jurisdictional concerns are raised regarding the adjudication of the Section 95 Application by Bench No. III of the NCLT while Liquidation Proceedings of the Corporate Debtor were pending before Bench No. VI. The Tribunal notes the Appellant's failure to address this issue formally through the prescribed channels, emphasizing the importance of procedural compliance in such matters.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismisses the Appeal, citing the Appellant's awareness of the proceedings, receipt of necessary documents, and the absence of objections raised during the stipulated period. The Tribunal refrains from expressing an opinion on the merits of the case, underscoring the Appellant's opportunity to contest the Application's admission before the Adjudicating Authority.

---