IBC jurisdiction under Section 60(2): pending insolvency proceedings against the borrower can anchor guarantor proceedings before the same forum.

Section 60(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code creates a special jurisdictional exception where insolvency proceedings against a principal borrower are already pending before an NCLT, and that term "pending" includes an instituted but undecided Section 7 application, not only a formally admitted CIRP. Accordingly, a proceeding against a corporate guarantor may be filed before the same Adjudicating Authority to keep connected insolvency matters arising from the same transaction before one forum and avoid conflicting decisions. On the stated facts, the Chennai Bench had jurisdiction, and the territorial objection failed, including because it was not timely raised.

---

---

Issues: Whether, for the purpose of Section 60(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, a proceeding against a corporate guarantor can be filed before the same Adjudicating Authority where an application under Section 7 against the principal borrower is already pending, even though CIRP in the principal borrower's case has not yet commenced by admission.

Analysis: Section 60(1) fixes jurisdiction with reference to the registered office of the corporate person, but Section 60(2) creates a special exception where CIRP or liquidation proceedings of the corporate debtor are already pending before a National Company Law Tribunal. The expression "pending" was held to refer to a proceeding that has been initiated and remains undecided, and not only to a proceeding after formal admission and commencement of CIRP. The object of the provision is to place connected insolvency proceedings arising from the same transaction before one forum and avoid conflicting decisions. On the facts, the application against the principal borrower had already been filed earlier and was pending when the application against the corporate guarantor was instituted, so the Chennai Bench had jurisdiction. The objection as to territorial jurisdiction was also not available to be raised at the appellate stage after the appellant had participated in the proceedings without timely contest.

Conclusion: The objection to maintainability on territorial jurisdiction failed, and the application against the corporate guarantor was rightly entertained by the Chennai Bench.

Ratio Decidendi: For Section 60(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, "pending" includes an already instituted and undecided CIRP application, and once such a proceeding exists against the principal borrower, the corporate guarantor's insolvency application must be filed before the same Adjudicating Authority notwithstanding the general rule in Section 60(1).

---