TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 887
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r 2025. 3. The learned Counsel state that substantially similar issues of law and facts arise in all these Petitions and therefore, they could be disposed of by a common judgment and order. 4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners had submitted that the issue raised in these Petitions is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalit Kumar Jain Vs Union of India 2021 9 SCC 321. Therefore, by our order of 25 November 2025, we had posted these matters for final disposal at the admission stage. We had already directed the Petitioners to serve a fresh notice upon the Respondents along with the copy of this order. 5. Our order dated 25 November 2025 reads as follows:- "1. Mr Shah and Ms Gogri, learned counsel for the Petitioners state that the Respondents in these matters have been duly served and an affidavit of service is also filed. 2. The learned counsel for the Petitioners state that the issue raised in these Petitions is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalit Kumar Jain vs. Union of India (2021) 9 SCC 321. 3. Accordingly, we post these matters for final disposal at the admi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dings before the DRT. Further, she pointed out that she was pressing for relief in terms of prayer clause (a) in addition to the other prayers. She points out that prayer clause (a) seeks quashing and setting aside of the DRT's order dated 2nd May 2022 by which the DRT has declared the interim moratorium under Section 96 of the IBC. 11. The contesting Respondents in this case, though served repeatedly, have chosen not to appear. Since notice of final disposal has already been issued, we see no difficulty in proceeding in their absence. 12. The learned Counsel for the DRT and the State Government are not, in that sense, any contesting Respondent. As such, they rightly left the matter for the determination of this Court. 13. For deciding these Petitions, we refer briefly to the facts in Writ Petition No. 9385 of 2024. In this case, the Petitioner is a Secured Creditor who granted a loan of Rs. 14.90 Crores to the principal borrower, PTRAANS Logistics India Pvt. Ltd (now known as Orbiigo Heavy Lifters Pvt. Ltd.). The said loan was guaranteed by Mr. Pravin Jain, Mrs. Kalpana Pravin Jain and M/s. Pravin Jain HUF, by giving their personal guarantees and creating a mortgage over ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he interplay between the respective jurisdictions of the NCLT and the DRT, has made the following observations at paragraphs 108, 112 and 113:- "108. The impugned notification authorises the Central Government and the Board to frame rules and regulations on how to allow the pending actions against a personal guarantor to a corporate debtor before the adjudicating authority. The intent of the notification, facially, is to allow for pending proceedings to be adjudicated in terms of the Code. Section 243, which provides for the repeal of the personal insolvency laws has not as yet been notified. Section 60(2) prescribes that in the event of an ongoing resolution process or liquidation process against a corporate debtor, an application for resolution process or bankruptcy of the personal guarantor to the corporate debtor shall be filed with NCLT concerned seized of the resolution process or liquidation. Therefore, the adjudicating authority for personal guarantors will be NCLT, if a parallel resolution process or liquidation process is pending in respect of a corporate debtor for whom the guarantee is given. The same logic prevails, under Section 60(3), when any insolvency or ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... against personal guarantors. 113. It is clear from the above analysis that parliamentary intent was to treat personal guarantors differently from other categories of individuals. The intimate connection between such individuals and corporate entities to whom they stood guarantee, as well as the possibility of two separate processes being carried on in different forums, with its attendant uncertain outcomes, led to carving out personal guarantors as a separate species of individuals, for whom the adjudicating authority was common with the corporate debtor to whom they had stood guarantee. The fact that the process of insolvency in Part III is to be applied to individuals, whereas the process in relation to corporate debtors, set out in Part II is to be applied to such corporate persons, does not lead to incongruity. On the other hand, there appear to be sound reasons why the forum for adjudicating insolvency processes - the provisions of which are disparate -is to be common i.e. through NCLT. As was emphasised during the hearing, NCLT would be able to consider the whole picture, as it were, about the nature of the assets available, either during the corporate debtor's ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....application or proceeding by or against the corporate debtor or corporate person; (b) any claim made by or against the corporate debtor or corporate person, including claims by or against any of its subsidiaries situated in India; and (c) any question of priorities or any question of law or facts, arising out of or in relation to the insolvency resolution or liquidation proceedings of the corporate debtor or corporate person under this Code. (6) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) or in any other law for the time being in force, in computing the period of limitation specified for any suit or application by or against a corporate debtor for which an order of moratorium has been made under this Part, the period during which such moratorium is in place shall be excluded." 23. Section 60(1), in terms provides that Adjudicating Authority, in relation to insolvency resolution and liquidation for corporate persons, including corporate debtors and personal guarantors thereof, shall be the National Company Law Tribunal having territorial jurisdiction over the place where the registered office of the corporate person is lo....