NCLAT dismisses appeals against insolvency proceedings for personal guarantors under Section 95 of I&B Code

NCLAT Chennai dismissed appeals challenging initiation of insolvency resolution process against personal guarantors under Section 95 of I&B Code, 2016. Appellants contended principles of natural justice were violated during Resolution Professional's report submission under Section 99. NCLAT held that Resolution Professional acts as facilitator providing information to Adjudicating Authority, not adjudicating rights. Report under Section 99 only assists Authority in deciding whether to admit application under Section 100. Sufficient opportunity was provided to appellants who received report and two months to file reply. Adjudicating Authority followed natural justice principles and protected appellants' rights by directing adherence to Sections 108-111 of I&B Code.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal issues considered in this judgment were:

1. Whether an elaborate hearing is required at the stage of considering the report submitted by the Resolution Professional under Section 99(7) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (I & B Code), before passing an order under Section 100 of the Code.

2. The effect of the withdrawal of proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) based on a settlement agreement on the proceedings initiated under Section 95 of the I & B Code.

3. The implications of the Resolution Professional's role and report under Section 99 of the I & B Code, particularly regarding the principles of natural justice.

4. Whether the Appellants were given adequate opportunity to present their case before the Adjudicating Authority, as per the principles of natural justice.

5. Additional objections raised by the Appellants, including jurisdictional issues, the necessity of a fresh demand notice, and discrepancies in the amounts claimed.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

1. Hearing Requirement at the Stage of Section 99 Report

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The I & B Code Sections 95 to 100 outline the process for initiating insolvency proceedings against personal guarantors. The Appellants argued, based on the precedent set in Dilip B Jiwrajka Vs. Union of India & Others, that the principles of natural justice require a hearing before accepting a Resolution Professional's report.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Dilip B Jiwrajka, which clarified that the Resolution Professional's role is recommendatory and not adjudicatory. The Tribunal emphasized that the Resolution Professional's report under Section 99 is not binding on the Adjudicating Authority.

Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal found that the Resolution Professional had provided the Appellants with opportunities to present their case and that the Appellants failed to file a response despite multiple opportunities.

Application of law to facts: The Tribunal concluded that the Appellants had been given sufficient opportunity to participate in the process and that the principles of natural justice were not violated.

2. Effect of Withdrawal of Proceedings Before DRT

Legal framework: The withdrawal of proceedings before the DRT was based on a settlement agreement, which was later terminated due to a default.

Court's reasoning: The Tribunal held that the withdrawal of proceedings before the DRT did not affect the independent proceedings under Section 95 of the I & B Code, which are based on a separate statutory framework.

3. Role of Resolution Professional and Natural Justice

Relevant legal framework: Section 99 of the I & B Code outlines the Resolution Professional's role in examining applications for insolvency resolution.

Court's interpretation: The Tribunal reiterated that the Resolution Professional's function is facilitative, not adjudicatory, and that the principles of natural justice apply primarily at the stage when the Adjudicating Authority considers the report under Section 100.

4. Adequate Opportunity to Present Case

Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal noted that the Appellants were given numerous opportunities to file their responses and participate in the proceedings but failed to do so.

Court's conclusion: The Tribunal found no violation of natural justice, as the Appellants had ample opportunity to present their case.

5. Additional Objections by Appellants

Appellants' contentions: The Appellants raised issues such as jurisdictional errors, the need for a fresh demand notice, and discrepancies in the claimed amounts.

Court's reasoning: The Tribunal held that these objections should have been raised before the Adjudicating Authority or the Resolution Professional, and having failed to do so, they could not be raised at the appellate stage.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

- The Tribunal upheld the principle that the Resolution Professional's role is recommendatory and not adjudicatory, as established in Dilip B Jiwrajka Vs. Union of India & Others.

- It was determined that the principles of natural justice were not violated, as the Appellants were given sufficient opportunity to present their case.

- The Tribunal concluded that the withdrawal of proceedings before the DRT did not impact the independent proceedings under Section 95 of the I & B Code.

- The appeals were dismissed on the grounds that the Appellants had not utilized the opportunities provided to them to present their case, and thus, the orders of the Adjudicating Authority were upheld.

The Tribunal's decision emphasized adherence to statutory timelines and procedures under the I & B Code, reinforcing the non-adjudicatory role of the Resolution Professional and the importance of timely participation by parties in insolvency proceedings.

---