Since a Financial Creditor had initiated action under section 7 of the Code against the Corporate Guarantor, the Application could not have been dismissed on the erroneous assumption that the Application should have been filed against the Personal Guarantor under Section 95 of the Code – Intec Capital Ltd. Vs. Eastern Embroidery Collections Pvt. Ltd. – NCLAT New Delhi

NCLAT held that Respondent ‘Eastern Embroidery Collections Private Limited’ was the Corporate Guarantor of the Principal Borrower ‘Eastern Overseas’, and not a Personal Guarantor. Therefore, in terms of Sub-section (7) and (8) of Sec 3 of I&B Code, 2016 is a Corporate Debtor. Further, the applicable Rules would be ‘Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2016’. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the Adjudicating Authority committed an error in holding that action should have been initiated against the Personal Guarantor of the Corporate Debtor under Section 95 of the Code instead of proceeding against the Corporate Debtor. In the circumstances stated above, Appeal deserves to be allowed, and the impugned order passed by the learned Adjudicating Authority is liable to be set aside.

Scroll to Top