Personal guarantor insolvency: multiple service attempts, debt invocation and assignment upheld; non-service and limitation objections failed.

Repeated service attempts by email, telephone, WhatsApp, speed post and newspaper publication were held sufficient in personal guarantor insolvency proceedings where the guarantor had actual knowledge and the contact details matched the guarantor's own filings. The petition under personal insolvency was found maintainable because the recovery certificate and later demand notices constituted valid invocation of liability, and the limitation objection failed. The assignment of the debt during the pendency of the matter did not divest the original creditor of locus, as the assignee stepped into the assignor's shoes and the assignment did not unsettle the admission order. Admission of insolvency proceedings and costs were upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the personal guarantor was duly served and had knowledge of the proceedings under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; (ii) Whether the petition under Section 95 was maintainable in view of the alleged absence of valid invocation of guarantee and the plea of limitation; (iii) Whether assignment of the debt during the pendency of the proceedings divested the original creditor of locus to continue the matter.

Issue (i): Whether the personal guarantor was duly served and had knowledge of the proceedings under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Analysis: The record showed repeated attempts to notify the personal guarantor through email, telephone, WhatsApp, speed post, and substituted service by newspaper publication. The address and contact details used by the Resolution Professional were taken from the creditor's record and were also reflected in the guarantor's own filings. The Tribunal held that a guarantor is expected to keep the creditor informed of current contact details and cannot take advantage of non-delivery where the available record shows service attempts and actual awareness of the proceedings.

Conclusion: The personal guarantor was duly served and was aware of the proceedings; the plea of non-service was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the petition under Section 95 was maintainable in view of the alleged absence of valid invocation of guarantee and the plea of limitation.

Analysis: The Tribunal relied on the recovery certificate issued by the DRT and subsequent demand notices as constituting valid invocation of liability against the guarantor. It found that the claim of prematurity was untenable because the debt had been crystallised and persisted unpaid. The limitation objection was also rejected in light of the recovery certificate and the later demand notices, which kept the claim within a legally sustainable frame for initiation of personal insolvency proceedings.

Conclusion: The petition under Section 95 was maintainable and the limitation defence failed.

Issue (iii): Whether assignment of the debt during the pendency of the proceedings divested the original creditor of locus to continue the matter.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that under the transfer provisions governing assignment of secured debt, the assignee steps into the shoes of the assignor and acquires the rights and interests in the debt. Since the assignment occurred after the matter had already been reserved for orders, it did not vitiate the proceedings. The objection was therefore treated as misconceived and incapable of unsettling the impugned admission order.

Conclusion: The assignment did not vitiate the proceedings and the locus objection was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the admission of personal insolvency proceedings against the guarantor, found no procedural or jurisdictional infirmity in the impugned order, and affirmed liability for costs due to the appellant's conduct.

Ratio Decidendi: In personal guarantor insolvency proceedings, service may be validly effected through multiple permissible modes and a guarantor who is shown to have actual knowledge cannot defeat the process by alleging non-service; additionally, a valid demand/recovery-based invocation of liability and a subsequent assignment of the debt do not negate maintainability where the assignee succeeds to the assignor's rights.

---