Tribunal Upholds Dismissal of Union Bank's Insolvency Application; Priority by Filing Date

The Tribunal affirmed the dismissal of Union Bank of India's application under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, seeking initiation of the Insolvency Resolution Process against a personal guarantor. The Tribunal held that the date of filing, not numbering, determines priority, and Union Bank of India could submit its claim through the Resolution Professional appointed in State Bank of India's application, ensuring no prejudice. Multiple applications against the same guarantor are not contemplated under the Code, consolidating creditors' claims in a single process.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the application filed by the Union Bank of India under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016 was dismissed correctly.
2. Whether the date of filing should be considered the date of presentation or the date of numbering by the registry.
3. Whether the Union Bank of India faced any prejudice due to the dismissal of its application.

Summary:

Issue 1: Dismissal of Application under Section 95 of IBC, 2016

The Appellant, Union Bank of India, challenged the dismissal of its application under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, seeking initiation of the Insolvency Resolution Process against a personal guarantor. The Adjudicating Authority had dismissed the application on the grounds that a similar application had already been filed by the State Bank of India (SBI) against the same personal guarantor, and an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) had been appointed under Section 97 of the Code.

Issue 2: Date of Filing vs. Date of Numbering

The Appellant argued that its application was filed three days prior to the SBI's application and should have been considered first. The Tribunal referred to the judgment in 'Vidyawati Gupta and Ors. vs. Bhakti Hari Nayak and Ors.' and 'Krishan Kumar Basia vs. State Bank of India,' which clarified that the date of filing should be considered the date of presentation of the application, irrespective of any defects that were subsequently cured. The Tribunal held that the date of filing is what is to be taken into account, not the date when the application is numbered.

Issue 3: Prejudice to Union Bank of India

The Tribunal noted that the Union Bank of India had the liberty to file its claim with the Resolution Professional (RP) appointed in the SBI's application. The Tribunal emphasized that the Insolvency Resolution Process against a personal guarantor takes into account the claims of all creditors, thereby ensuring that no prejudice would be caused to the Union Bank of India. The Tribunal also observed that the Union Bank of India had multiple opportunities to bring the earlier filing date to the notice of the Bench but failed to do so.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the date of filing should be considered the date of presentation and that no prejudice would be caused to the Union Bank of India as it could file its claim with the RP. The Tribunal emphasized that the Code does not contemplate multiple applications against the same personal guarantor and that all creditors' claims are addressed within a single Insolvency Resolution Process.

---