Sarita Patni Personal Guarantor Of Ankit Metal & Power Ltd. vs Assets Care & Reconstruction Enterprise Limited

The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant i.e., Sarita Patni, who is the Personal Guarantor of Ankit Metal & Power Ltd. (“Corporate Debtor”), under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘Code’) against the Order dated 05.07.2024 ("Impugned Order") passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench ("Adjudicating Authority") in IA No. 344/2024 in Company Petition (IB) No. 253/KB/2023.

Assets Care & Reconstruction Enterprise Limited, who is the Financial Creditor, is the Respondent No.1 herein.

Aditya Kumar Tibrewal, who is the Resolution Professional of the Corporate Debtor, is Respondent No. 2, herein.

The Appellant submitted that despite the mandatory statutory framework contained under Section 99(1) of the Code, Respondent No. 2 filed IA 344/2024 on 06.02.2024 after expiry of the prescribed period of ten days. The Appellant contended that the said application sought to place on record the report under Section 99(1) recommending initiation of CIRP against the Appellant. It was submitted that no application for condonation of delay accompanied IA 344/2024 and no explanation was offered by Respondent No. 2 for the admitted delay in filing the report. The Appellant contended that the filing of IA 344/2024 beyond the statutory period without seeking condonation of delay amounted to a direct contravention of the mandatory provisions of Section 99(1) of the Code. It is submitted that the statutory timelines under the Code are sacrosanct in nature and cannot be ignored mechanically. The Appellant further submitted that the Adjudicating Authority erred in entertaining the said application without first adjudicating upon the issue of limitation and delay.

The Appellant further submitted that an additional procedural irregularity occurred insofar as the Appellant herself was not arrayed as a party in IA 344/2024. It is contended that despite the fact that the application directly affected the rights and liabilities of the Appellant, Respondent No. 2 deliberately omitted impleading the Appellant in the interlocutory application. The Appellant submitted that such deliberate exclusion effectively prevented the Appellant from filing objections and defending herself against the allegations contained in the report.

The Appellant contended that the Adjudicating Authority nevertheless proceeded with hearings in IA 344/2024 on 06.02.2024, 13.03.2024 and 24.04.2024. It is submitted that during the said hearings, the Appellant sought time to file a reply to IA 344/2024. The Appellant further submitted that vide order dated 24.04.2024, the Adjudicating Authority permitted the Appellant to file reply subject to payment of costs quantified at Rs. 5,000/-. The Appellant submitted that acting bona fide and under abundant caution, she proceeded to comply with the order imposing costs and accordingly issued letter dated 12.06.2024 addressed to the Calcutta High Court Advocate’s Clerks’ Philanthropic Trust for deposit of the costs amounting to Rs. 5,000/- through cheque bearing no. 018628 dated 20.05.2024. The Appellant contended that the said compliance demonstrated her bona fide intention to prosecute her defence diligently and in accordance with the directions passed by the Adjudicating Authority.

The Appellant submitted that she is a female senior citizen and owing to her age and circumstances, some reasonable time was required for preparation, approval, execution and notarisation of the reply. The Appellant further submitted that the functioning of the Adjudicating Authority stood affected on account of Court vacations from 25.05.2024 till 08.06.2024, which further contributed to the delay in filing the reply.

The Appellant further submitted that due to the fact that she had not been impleaded as a party in IA 344/2024, serious procedural impediments arose in filing the reply electronically. It is contended that the e-filing portal did not permit filing of reply in the interlocutory application since the Appellant’s name was absent from the array of parties therein. The Appellant submitted that such procedural obstacle was a direct consequence of the intentional omission committed by Respondent No. 2.

The Appellant contended that owing to the aforesaid technical and procedural difficulty, the reply ultimately had to be filed electronically in the main petition being CP (IB) 253/KB/2023 on 21.06.2024 at 11:09 A.M. It is submitted that the Appellant had thus substantially complied with the directions issued by the Adjudicating Authority and had taken all necessary steps for bringing her objections on record. The Appellant submitted that despite the aforesaid compliance, when the matter was taken up on 21.06.2024, the Adjudicating Authority abruptly closed the Appellant’s right to file reply and reserved the matter for orders. It is contended that such action was highly prejudicial and contrary to settled principles of natural justice, particularly when the reply had already been e-filed on the same day.

The Appellant further submitted that immediately thereafter, on 24.06.2024, the matter was specifically mentioned before the Adjudicating Authority. The Appellant contended that prior intimation regarding such mentioning had also been duly furnished to the Respondents through email dated 24.06.2024. It is submitted that during the said mentioning, the Adjudicating Authority was expressly informed that the reply to IA 344/2024 had already been e-filed on 21.06.2024 and that the imposed costs of Rs. 5,000/- had also been duly deposited.

The Appellant submitted that upon being apprised of the aforesaid facts, the Adjudicating Authority permitted the Appellant to submit physical copies of the reply before the Registry. It is further submitted that the Appellant complied with the said direction on the very same date and duly filed the hard copy of the reply with the Registry, acknowledgement whereof was also obtained.

The Appellant however contended that despite permitting filing of the reply and taking the same on record, the Adjudicating Authority completely failed to consider the contents thereof while passing the impugned order dated 05.07.2024. It is submitted that the impugned order incorrectly records that no reply had been filed by the Appellant, despite the admitted fact that the reply had already been filed electronically as well as physically and had been accepted by the Registry. According to the Appellant, such recording amounts to a patent factual error and demonstrates complete non-application of mind.

The Appellant further submitted that the impugned order was consequently passed without considering the objections raised by the Appellant against IA 344/2024 and thereafter CP (IB) 253/KB/2023 itself came to be allowed. It is contended that the entire process adopted by the Adjudicating Authority stands vitiated on account of violation of audi alteram partem and denial of fair hearing.

The Appellant further submitted that another serious irregularity is apparent from the communication dated 15.01.2024 issued by Respondent No. 2, wherein the Appellant was incorrectly described as a Personal Guarantor of “UIC Udyog Limited.” The Appellant contended that UIC Udyog Limited has absolutely no connection whatsoever with the present proceedings initiated under Section 95 of the Code.

The Appellant submitted that she had never executed any personal guarantee on behalf of UIC Udyog Limited at any point of time. It was therefore contended that the reference to UIC Udyog Limited in the communication issued by Respondent No. 2 was wholly erroneous, misleading and contrary to the factual record. The Appellant alleged that Respondent No. 2 intentionally and maliciously used the name of UIC Udyog Limited with the object of misleading both the Appellant as well as the Adjudicating Authority. It is submitted that the said conduct was deliberate in nature and intended to create confusion regarding the identity of the alleged guarantor and the underlying transaction.

The Appellant further contended that Respondent No. 2, in collusion with Respondent No. 1, intentionally issued the incorrect communication to the Appellant so as to prevent her from responding effectively to the same, since the Appellant had no connection with UIC Udyog Limited. According to the Appellant, such conduct amounts to fraud upon the Appellant and abuse of the insolvency process contemplated under the Code.

The Appellant submitted that the Adjudicating Authority failed to properly scrutinize the report submitted by Respondent No. 2 and proceeded to pass the impugned order without examining the discrepancies and irregularities appearing on the face of record. It is contended that the Adjudicating Authority ignored the material objections raised by the Appellant and failed to exercise the degree of judicial scrutiny required under law.

The Appellant further contended that the impugned order stands in clear violation of principles of natural justice since the same was passed without duly considering the reply and objections filed by the Appellant. The Appellant submitted that once the reply had been accepted on record by the Adjudicating Authority, the Adjudicating Authority was under a legal obligation to consider the same before rendering any final findings.

The Appellant submitted that Rule 150 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules mandates that orders are to be pronounced only after hearing both the Applicant and the Respondent. The Appellant contended that in the present case, the impugned order was passed without granting effective hearing to the Appellant and without considering her duly filed reply, thereby rendering the impugned proceedings wholly unsustainable in law.

Concluding its arguments, the Appellant requested this Appellate Tribunal to set aside the Impugned Order and allow this appeal.

Per contra, the Respondent No. 1 and the Respondent No. 2 (henceforth called as the Respondents since, their rebuttal are similar) denied all averments made by the Appellants as misleading and baseless.

The Respondents submitted that the Appellant has deliberately attempted to create an impression as though she was denied an opportunity of hearing, whereas the record unequivocally establishes that repeated opportunities were granted to the Appellant for filing reply and contesting the proceedings. The Respondents further submitted that the Appellant is attempting to misuse the appellate jurisdiction of this Appellate Tribunal for restoration of her right to file reply affidavit, which had already been closed by the Adjudicating Authority after granting adequate and repeated indulgence. It is contended that despite obtaining several opportunities and extensions, the Appellant intentionally failed to file reply within the prescribed timelines and continued adopting dilatory tactics solely to delay adjudication of the insolvency proceedings.

The Respondents submitted that the chronology of proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority demonstrates that the Appellant had complete knowledge of the proceedings and was repeatedly granted opportunities to place her defence on record. It is contended that notices were duly issued, the matter was listed from time to time and the Appellant was represented through counsel during the course of hearings. According to Respondent No. 1, the proceedings were conducted in a fair, orderly and transparent manner and therefore no allegation of denial of natural justice can survive.

The Respondents further contended that the Appellant was specifically granted multiple opportunities to contest the report submitted by the Resolution Professional under Section 99 of the Code. It is submitted that even after repeated adjournments and extensions granted in the interest of justice, the Appellant failed to file any effective reply within time. The Respondent No. 1 therefore submitted that the present Appeal is merely an indirect attempt to reopen and restore a procedural right which stood validly closed by judicial order. The Respondents submitted that the Appellant’s principal defence revolves around the communication dated 15.01.2024 issued by the Resolution Professional wherein reference was allegedly made to “UIC Udyog Private Limited.” It is contended that the Appellant has isolated the said typographical error while completely ignoring the surrounding circumstances and subsequent proceedings which clearly identified the subject matter and parties involved.

The Respondents submitted that the said communication referred to the order dated 08.01.2024 passed by the Adjudicating Authority whereby the insolvency resolution process against the Appellant was initiated. It is contended that the Appellant was fully aware of the proceedings arising out of the said order and cannot now seek to avoid liability on the basis of an inadvertent typographical error contained in one communication.

The Respondents further submitted that the Resolution Professional had subsequently filed the report under Section 99 of the Code on 05.02.2024 and the said report clearly identified the Corporate Debtor and the Appellant. It is contended that the report was available to the Appellant and despite having knowledge thereof, the Appellant never raised any objection before the Adjudicating Authority regarding the alleged typographical error in the letter dated 15.01.2024.

The Respondents submitted that throughout the proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority, including hearings conducted on 06.02.2024 and 13.03.2024 and subsequent dates, the Appellant remained represented through counsel and actively participated in the proceedings. It is therefore contended that the Appellant cannot now claim ignorance of the proceedings or violation of principles of natural justice.

The Respondents submitted that with respect to the Appellant’s challenge concerning IA 344/2024 and closure of the right to file reply, the same is contrary to the procedural history of the matter. It is contended that the Appellant was granted repeated opportunities and therefore cannot claim deprivation of hearing. The Respondents further submitted that it stands recorded in the order dated 30.09.2024 that the Appellant’s reply was accepted by the Registry only on 28.06.2024, whereas the right to file such reply had already stood closed by the Adjudicating Authority on 27.04.2024. It is contended that the subsequent acceptance by Registry cannot retrospectively revive a procedural right that had already been closed. The Respondents submitted that the allegations regarding non-consideration of objections in IA 344/2024 and challenge to orders dated 21.06.2024 and 05.07.2024 are wholly misconceived and unsupported by the record.

The Respondents further submitted that even the purported reply affidavit sought to be relied upon by the Appellant does not dispute the existence of debt or occurrence of default. It is contended that the Appellant failed to controvert the substantive findings contained in the Resolution Professional’s report and instead sought to raise only technical and procedural objections devoid of merit.

The Respondents submitted that the Corporate Debtor acknowledged the outstanding debt and liability in its balance sheets from the financial year 204 onwards up to the latest balance sheet dated 31.03.2021. It is contended that such acknowledgements also took place through various settlement arrangements entered into with the lender banks and the Appellant. The Respondents submitted that the Appellant has nowhere denied either the existence of debt or the occurrence of default in the present Appeal. It is contended that the sole defence raised by the Appellant pertains to alleged denial of opportunity, which stands conclusively disproved from the record of proceedings. The Respondents further submitted that the Appellant had executed a Deed of Guarantee dated 09.12.2014 in favour of SBICAP Trustee Company Limited acting as Security Trustee for the lender banks. It is contended that the said guarantee was unconditional, irrevocable and continuing in nature. The Respondents relied upon Clause 2 of the Deed of Guarantee, which obligated the guarantors to forthwith pay all amounts payable by the borrower upon occurrence of default without demur upon demand by the lenders or security trustee. The Respondents further relied upon Clause 20 of the Deed of Guarantee, which expressly stipulates that the guarantee is irrevocable and that the obligations of the guarantors would not stand discharged except upon complete performance of obligations. The Respondents also relied upon Clause 22 of the Deed of Guarantee, which provides that the guarantee shall remain continuing and operative until complete repayment of the restructured facilities together with all interest, charges, costs and other monies payable under the transaction documents. The Respondents relied upon Clause 25 of the Deed of Guarantee, which stipulates that the rights and powers conferred upon the lenders are joint and several in nature and enforceable accordingly. In view of the aforesaid clauses, the Respondents submitted that the liability of the Appellant as personal guarantor is absolute, co-extensive, continuing and irrevocable until discharge of the entire outstanding liabilities of the Corporate Debtor.

The Respondents contended that the Adjudicating Authority rightly admitted both the Corporate Debtor and the Appellant into the insolvency resolution process after due consideration of the material placed on record. It is submitted that the impugned order dated 05.07.2024 is a reasoned order passed upon judicial consideration and therefore does not warrant interference by this Appellate Tribunal. The Respondents further submitted that the insolvency process has already progressed substantially and interference at the present stage would defeat the very objective of the Code, namely resolution in a time-bound manner.

The Respondents submitted that the purported mentioning notice dated 24.06.2024 was allegedly addressed only to Resolution Professional and not to Respondent No. 1. It is contended that the matter itself was listed before NCLT Kolkata Bench-I whereas the mentioning was allegedly sought before Bench-II, thereby rendering the entire exercise procedurally improper and misleading. The Respondents also submitted that the Appellant has concocted a false narrative regarding alleged technical difficulties in filing reply affidavit. It is contended that despite claiming inability to file reply due to technical issues, the Appellant successfully e-filed the reply affidavit on 21.06.2024 at 11:09 A.M., which itself disproves the allegations of impossibility or procedural prejudice.

Concluding arguments, the Respondents requested this Appellate Tribunal to dismiss the appeal.

Findings

It is observed that Ankit Metal & Power Limited (“Corporate Debtor”), engaged in the business of iron and steel, was the principal borrower and the Appellant was one of its personal guarantors.

It is noted that the debt sought to be enforced by the Lender Banks traces back to various credit facilities sanctioned by a consortium of banks, namely IDBI Bank, Indian Overseas Bank, Allahabad Bank and State Bank of India, (Lender Banks) in favour of Ankit Metal & Power Limited. It is contended that the said facilities were originally governed by the Working Capital Consortium Agreement dated 14.09.2007 executed amongst the Corporate Debtor and lender Banks. A Master Restructuring Agreement dated 25.09.2014 was subsequently executed between the lender banks and the Corporate Debtor.

The facilities were secured by restructuring agreements, deeds of hypothecation and other security documents, however, the Corporate Debtor defaulted in repayment and failed to regularise its accounts, leading to classification of its accounts as NPAs by the lender banks. The joint lenders’ forum then decided to exit the Corporate Debtor from the CDR Scheme on December 28, 2016, and recovery actions were initiated against the Corporate Debtor and its personal guarantors, and the Corporate Debtor acknowledged its outstanding debt and default in its balance sheets from 2014 to 31 March 2022 and through various settlement arrangements.

In connection thereto, the Appellant along with other guarantors had executed a Joint Deed of Guarantee in favour of the lender banks, and thereafter the aforesaid lender banks assigned the secured debts in favour of Respondent No. 1 through Assignment Agreements dated 28.03.2018, 29.06.2018 and 31.07.2018. By virtue of these assignments and in view of continued default of the Corporate Debtor despite opportunities to repay, the Respondent No. 1 filed a Section 7 application, C.P.(IB) 91/KB/2023, which was admitted on May 3, 2024. Based on said assignment of debt, Respondent No. 1 instituted proceedings under Section 95 of the Code against the Appellant and proposed the appointment of Mr. Aditya Kumar Tibrewal as the Resolution Professional. It is noted further that pursuant thereto, the Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 08.01.2024 appointed Respondent No. 2 as the Resolution Professional and directed him to submit a report under Section 99(1) of the Code along with his recommendation regarding admission or rejection of the application.

During hearing, we specifically asked the Appellant to state clearly whether any dispute exists regarding debt and default by the Corporate Debtor or by Personal Guarantee given by the Appellant in favour of the lender banks on account of financial facilities obtained by the Corporate Debtor from the lender banks. The Appellant fairly submitted that there is no dispute regarding existence of debt and resultant default by the Corporate Debtor. The Appellant conceded that she has given personal guarantee which were irrevocable and the same was indeed invoked by the lender banks. However, the main ground of which the appeal has been filed by the Appellant are two fold i.e., the Appellant has not been given an opportunity to represent her case and the Adjudicating Authority has not considered the reply filed by the Appellant. The other ground taken by the Appellant is that the communication made by the Respondent No. 2 mentions the UIC Udyog Limited as Corporate Debtor which the Appellant had no connection. It is the case of the Appellant that on these two grounds her appeal should be allowed and the impugned order need to be set aside. We shall examine both these issues one by one.

It is noted that the application under Section 95 of the Code was admitted on 13.12.2023. The Resolution Professional (RP) was appointed on 8 January 2024. On 6 February 2024, the Adjudicating Authority directed the Resolution Professional to file a report upon service to the Personal Guarantor/Appellant and granted the Personal Guarantor time to file a response. Despite this, the Personal Guarantor failed to appear or file a reply. The Adjudicating Authority then granted further opportunities, directing the Personal Guarantor/Appellant to file a reply by 13 February 2024, followed by another opportunity by 13 March 2024, and another by 20 March 2024. On 24 April 2024, despite the last opportunity, the Adjudicating Authority granted a two days’ extension with a cost of Rs. 5,000. On 26 April 2024, the respondent made submissions on merits. Even on 21 June 2024, the Adjudicating Authority observed that the reply affidavit was still not filed. Finally, on 5 July 2024, the Adjudicating Authority reserved the matter for orders after admitting the application under Section 100 of the Code, taking into account the existence of debt, default, and other relevant aspects, while noting the repeated non-compliance with its directions including payment of costs. Thus, we note that many opportunities were accorded to the Appellant to file reply in the pending proceedings before the Adjudicating Authority and despite these, the Appellant failed to file the reply.

The Appellant has not denied that the facilities, extended to the Corporate Debtor, were secured by way of a personal guarantee given by the Appellant. It is also an admitted fact that subsequently, the Corporate Debtor defaulted in repayment and its account was classified as Non-Performing Assets. The Appellant became liable for the amounts so outstanding, and no payment has been made by her. The Respondent No.1, in its Application under Section 95 of the Code, has elaborated upon the details of the debt and default thereof. A perusal of the Report, filed by the Resolution Professional amplify that such details of the debt owed by the Appellant have been considered by the Resolution Professional, in detail, before arriving at a conclusion. The Appellant, being an unconditional, irrevocable and continuing personal guarantor is under clear obligations under the deed of guarantee, particularly when the existence of debt and default is neither denied nor disputed and multiple instances of non-payment have culminated in the initiation of proceedings under Section 95.

As regard, first issue the star point of the Appellant is that she has been denied principal of natural justice, the Appellant has given the sequence of date when hearing took place. The Appellant also fairly conceded that during hearing on 06.02.2024, 13.03.2024 and 24.03.2024, the Appellant sought time to file reply to IA No. 344 of 2024, however, the Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 24.04.2024 allowed the Appellant to file reply to IA No. 344 of 2024 subject to deposition of cost of Rs. 5000/-. The Appellant also empathetically submitted that Respondent No. 2 intentionally filed IA No. 344 of 2024 without making Appellant as a party to prevent Appellant from filing objections.

The Appellant also submitted that reply was filed in IA No. 344/2024 in Company Petition (IB) No. 253/KB/2023 and since the Appellant was not a party to the said IA the e-filing portal was not allowing her to file any reply in the said IA. The Appellant also brought to our notice that she is a senior lady citizen and it took sometime for her to get draft reply and get it approved and signed and notaries. The reply was e-filed to the main petition on 21.06.2024, however, the Adjudicating Authority closed the rights of the Appellant to file the reply and reserved the main petition for passing the impugned order.

In this connection, we would like to take into consideration the order of the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata, Division Bench No. I) which reads as under :-

From above, it is seen that the Adjudicating Authority had categorically stated that “Despite repeated opportunities, reply affidavit has not been filed and the cost has also not been paid by the Personal Guarantor. It appears that the Personal Guarantor is not interested to raise objections to the report. Heard. Reserved for orders.”

In this connection, we also note that the Appellant through her counsel had written to Respondent No. 1 that on 24.06.2024 regarding mentioning of case in National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata, Division Bench No. II. The communication reads as under :-“This is to inform you that the captioned matter shall be mentioned by us before the NCLT, Kolkata Bench 2 at 2:30 pm today or so soon thereafter as and when the business of the Hon’ble bench shall permit when please attend”.

From above, we note that although the hearing was taking place by National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata, Division Bench No. I, as noted in order sheet dated 21.06.2024 quoted earlier, however, the Appellant chose to mention the same to National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench (Court No. II) , Kolkata, and that to on 24.06.2024 when the matter was itself reserved by the Court No. 1 on 21.06.2024. We do not find any logic for the same. It does not support the cause of the Appellant in any way.

Based on above, we find that the Adjudicating Authority has indeed given several opportunities to the Appellant to file the reply. The Adjudicating Authority on the last occasion on 24.06.2024 imposed the cost of Rs. 5,000/-despite that while reserving the order the reply was not filed by the Appellant. As such, we do not find any error in the impugned order on this account and do not find merit in the contentions of the Appellant that the impugned order was pronounced without taking into consideration the reply of the Appellant.

Now, we will examine the second issue raised by the Appellant regarding Respondent No. 2’s error in mentioning the name of the UIC Udyog Limited as Corporate Debtor. It is the case of the Appellant that the Resolution Professional of the Appellant had served a letter dated 15.01.2024 relating to the affairs of one UIC Udyog Private Limited, referring the same the Corporate Debtor but the Appellant had no business relationship with such entity. In this connection, we note that said letter refer to order details of the Adjudicating Authority order dated January 8, 2024, through which the CIRP was initiated. Subsequently, the Respondent No.1 filed his report in the matter on February 5, 2024 and such report clearly identifies Ankit Metal & Power Ltd. as the Corporate Debtor in the matter, and such report was also available with the Appellant at the relevant time. It has been also brought out that the subsequent hearings in the matter including multiple opportunities for filing a response to the RP’s report were within the knowledge of the Appellant and at no point in time, before the Adjudicating Authority or otherwise did the Appellant sought an exception to the letter dated 15.01.2024 on account of the typographical error in the said letter. Thus, the Appellant’s case of there being violation of principles of equity and natural justice does not seem convincing.

We find that in the original section 7 petition as well as Section 95 application name of the Ankit Metal & Power Ltd. was clearly mentioned as name of the Corporate Debtor. The Respondent N. 2/ Resolution Professional fairly conceded that there was a typographical error only once in communication to the Appellant w.r.t when the name of Corporate Debtor i.e., using name of UIC Udyog Limited instead of Ankit Metal & Power Ltd.. However, the same has not caused any prejudice to the Appellant since the Appellant was well aware of the facts especially the correct name of the Corporate Debtor being Ankit Metal & Power Ltd. and had indeed attended the hearing through counsels.

The plea of the Appellant that she was not personal guarantor to UIC Udyog Limited and has no connection with the UIC Udyog Limited under Section 95 proceedings and further, no personal guarantee was executed by the Appellant on behalf of the UIC Udyog Limited are not convincing in view of above details. We also note that the Appellant has never raised this issue of clerically error in communication by Respondent No. 2 dated 15.01.2024 before the Adjudicating Authority.

During hearing, we also find that no prejudice, whatsoever, has been caused to the Appellant by singular clerical error by Respondent No. 2/ Resolution Professional as the Appellant was very well aware of the correct name of the Corporate Debtor being Ankit Metal & Power Ltd. for whom she gave personal guarantee to the Lender Banks. The Appellant acknowledged the guarantee given by her in respect of financial facilities granted to the Corporate Debtor by the lenders. It is reiterated that the Appellant has not disputed the existence of debt and default or her signing of the personal guarantee.

As such, we do not find any error in the impugned order. The appeal fails and stand rejected. No cost. I.A.’s, if any, are closed.