High CourtsSingle Bench(2021) 09 KAR CK 0016

Sai Ramakrishna Karuturi vs ICICI BANK LTD. & Others

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 30 September 2021

HON’BLE JUDGES
Krishna S.Dixit, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 11357 Of 2021 (GM-DRT)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 340 words

Krishna S.Dixit, J

1.

The petitioner who happens to be a personal guarantor for the Working Capital Demand Loan given by the first respondent - Bank in favour of the second respondent - Company seeks to lay a challenge to the Loan Recovery Proceedings taken up in O.A.No.2296/2016 i.e., TA No.1185/2017 under the provisions of Section 19 of the Recovery of Debt due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, that have culminated into the orders which are sought to be invalidated at the hands of Writ Court. The challenge is founded on the ground of Section 7 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 inasmuch as, the Axis Bank Ltd., has preferred C.P.(I.B.) No.216/BB/2018 against the second respondent - borrower for a claim of Rs.86,60,30,519.03/- which has been admitted by the National Company Law Tribunal and a Moratorium Order is made on 02.08.2019.

2.

The first respondent having entered Caveat through its counsel, vehemently opposes the petition principally contending that the moratorium order in terms of Section 14 of IBR does not extend protection to the personal guarantors; he justifiably banks upon paragraph 20 of the Apex Court decision in State Bank of India Vs. V RAMAKRISHNAN & ANOTHER, (2018) 17 SCC 394, which reads as under:

"Section 14 refers to four matters that may be prohibited once the moratorium comes into effect. In each of the matters referred to, be it institution of assets, action of recover security interest, or recovery of property by an owner which is in possession of the corporate debtor, what is conspicuous by debtor and the corporate debtor alone is referred to in the said section. A plain reading of the said section, therefore, leads to the conclusion that the moratorium referred to in Section 14 can have no manner of application to personal guarantors of a corporate debtor."

In the above circumstances, agreeing with the contention of the respondent-Bank, this writ petition having been found devoid of merits, is liable to be rejected and accordingly, it is, costs having been made easy.