Mrs. Venkata Sujatha Penmetsa vs Bank Of Baroda

(Hybrid Mode)

[Oral Judgment: Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Member (Judicial)]

Heard Learned Counsels for the parties. In Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 298/2025, Venkata Sujatha Penmetsa, represented by Mr. Vijay K Penmetsa Vs. Bank of Baroda & 2 Ors, the challenge given by the Appellant is to the impugned order dated 09.05.2025, that was passed in CP(IB)/18/95/AMR/2022. The effect of the impugned order had been that the personal insolvency proceedings that were initiated by the Financial Creditor / The Respondent herein, by filing an application under Section 95 of I&B Code, to be read with Rule 7 (2) of Insolvency & Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority for Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtors) Rules, 2019, was allowed and the Personal Guarantor was directed to be admitted to face the IRP process. The relevant observations made in the impugned order, is extracted hereunder:

While considering the Application under Section 99(7) of IBC, we need to refer to the report/ recommendation of the RP. In the present case, the RP in his report filed under Section 99 of IBC has stated that the application filed by the Applicant, Bank of Baroda is in compliance with section 95 of the Code and has recommended for acceptance of the present Application for initiating Personal Insolvency Resolution Process against the Personal Guarantor-Smt. Venkata Sujatha Penmetsa.

This Company Appeal was preferred by filing of the same before the registry of this Tribunal on 11.06.2025, and at that point of time it was accompanied by a Condone Delay Application. Notices were issued to the Respondents on 30.06.2025 and thereafter, by an order passed on 01.08.2025, the delay was condoned and the counter was called. Ever since then, the matter has remained pending without grant of any interim order. It was lastly listed on 02.04.2026.

In the connected Company Appeal, Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 299/2025, Mr. Vijay K Penmetsa (Personal Guarantor) Vs. Bank of Baroda (Financial Creditor) & 2 Ors, the Appellant gives a challenge to the impugned order of 09.05.2025, that was passed in CP(IB)/17/95/AMR/2022, being yet again the proceedings initiated by the Bank of Baroda (Financial Creditor) by filing an application under Section 95 of I&B Code, to be read with Rule 7 (2) of Insolvency & Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority for Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtor) Rules, 2019. In this proceedings too, upon considering the rival contentions, the Learned Tribunal came to a conclusion that, the circumstances do warrant admission of the said application and accordingly passed the order under Section 100 of I&B Code, admitting the application and commencing IRP proceedings against the Appellant. This Company Appeal too, ever since its institution has remained pending, without the grant of the interim order. It was lastly listed on 02.04.2026.

The Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 300/2025, has been preferred by the Appellant Mr. Sriram Raju Nadimpalli, represented by Mr. Vijay K Penmetsa. In this Company Appeal the challenge given by the Appellant is to the impugned order of 28.05.2025, that was rendered in CP (IB)/60/95/AMR/2022, being the proceedings under Section 95 of I&B Code, along with Rule 7 (2) of Insolvency & Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority for Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantors to the Corporate Debtor) Rules, 2019. In this Company Petition proceedings too, by virtue of the impugned order, the Learned Tribunal has reached a finding akin to those reached in the earlier 2 Company Petitions under discussion herein, that sufficient justification is there for admission of the application filed under Section 95 of the Code, in the light of the observations made in Para 12 & 13 of the impugned order. This Company Appeal too, after its institution on 23.06.2025, remained pending, without the grant of the interim order, till it was lastly listed with the bunch matters on 02.04.2026.

Today, when all these Company Appeals were listed for orders, the Learned Counsel for the Appellant had submitted that, a Company Appeal being Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 757/2020, (TA (AT) No. 247/2021) had been preferred before this Appellate Tribunal as against the order of 26.05.2020, passed by the Learned Adjudicating Authority, Amaravati Bench in IA No. 64/2020 in TCP (IB) No. 41/9/AMR/2019 (CP (IB) No.423/HDB/2018). In the said impugned order, the Learned Tribunal had passed the following orders:

The Applications in IA No. 64 of 2020, IA No. 66 of 2020, IA No. 67 of 2020 & IA No. 68 of 2020 are rejected on contest. The Resolution Plan submitted in IA No. 64 of 2020 is rejected under section 31(2) of the Code. Prayers made in IA No. 66 of 2020, IA No. 67 of 2020 and IA No. 68 of 2020 are refused. The Resolution Plan having not found favour with this Authority an order for liquidation in terms of section 33 (1)(b) of the Code has to be passed.

The effect of the order as extracted above was that, IA No. 64/2020, IA No. 66/2020, IA No. 67/2020 & IA No. 68/2020 were rejected, and the resolution plan which was submitted was rejected, since having not found favour and consequently the Corporate Debtor was put to liquidation by an order passed under Section 33 (1)(b) of the Code. This Company Appeal was taken up finally on 02.04.2026 and this Tribunal by the judgment dated 02.04.2026 has dismissed the Company Appeal on the ground, since that there was no approved resolution plan under the I&B Code, the Learned Adjudicating Authority has no other option except to order liquidation.

Owing to the fact that, by virtue of the judgment rendered in TA (AT) No. 247/2021 (Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 757/2020). The liquidation has already been ordered and was subsequently affirmed by this Appellate Tribunal, the issue pertaining to admission of proceedings under Section 95 of the Code, becomes irrelevant to be considered on merits. Hence, owing to the judgment rendered on 02.04.2026 affirming the order of liquidation, these Company Appeals have lost their cause and they would accordingly stand dismissed as having been rendered infructuous. All pending Interlocutory Applications would stand closed.