Castex Technologies Ltd.

Whether Interim Moratorium under Section 96 of IBC shall kick in even if Section 95 application is not filed before jurisdictional NCLT | Whether Section 95(1) of IBC empowers Creditor to apply either by himself, or jointly with other Creditors, or through a Resolution Professional for initiating an insolvency resolution process against Personal Guarantor – Mr. Arvind Dham Vs. State Bank of India and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi

In the present case, Hon’ble NCLAT observed that the application filed by the L&T Finance under Section 95, which was filed before NCLT, New Delhi was clearly not maintainable since as per Section 60(2) of the Code application under Section 95 by L&T Finance ought to have been filed before the Adjudicating Authority where insolvency resolution process against the Corporate Debtor is pending. Section 7 application filed by State Bank of India against Castex Technologies Pvt. Ltd. on 20.12.2017 being pending before NCLT, Chandigarh, no application filed against Personal Guarantor was maintainable at NCLT, New Delhi and the application filed by L&T Finance on 23.01.2020 under Section 95 was not filed before the Adjudicating Authority who was competent to entertain the application, hence, the interim moratorium under Section 96 shall also not kick-in since the application was not filed before jurisdictional NCLT.

Whether Interim Moratorium under Section 96 of IBC shall kick in even if Section 95 application is not filed before jurisdictional NCLT | Whether Section 95(1) of IBC empowers Creditor to apply either by himself, or jointly with other Creditors, or through a Resolution Professional for initiating an insolvency resolution process against Personal Guarantor – Mr. Arvind Dham Vs. State Bank of India and Anr. – NCLAT New Delhi Read Post »

Scroll to Top