S.No.

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL

HYDERABAD BENCH – 1
ATTENDANCE CUM ORDER SHEET OF THE HEARING HELD ON
14-06-2023 AT 10:30 AM

CP (IB) No. 197/95/HDB/2022

u/s. 95 of IBC, 2016

IN THE MATTER OF:

Pridhvi Asset Reconstruction and
Securitisation Company Ltd …Petitioner

VS

Mr. Kongara Naveen (Sri Pavana Keerthi

Hotels India Pvt Ltd) …Respondent

C O R A M:-
DR. VENKATA RAMAKRISHNA BADARINATH NANDULA, HON’BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
SH. CHARAN SINGH, HON’BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

ORDER

Orders in CP.No.197/2022 pronounced. Recorded vide separate sheets. In the

result, the above CP filed under the provisions of Section 95 of Code, 2016 is
hereby admitted under the provisions of Section 100 of the Code, 2016 and
Insolvency Resolution Process is initiated against the Personal Guarantor, and
moratorium is declared in relation to all debts, which begins from the date of
admission of the instant petition and shall cease to have effect at the end of the
period of 180 days, as provided under Section 101 of the Code, 2016. Mr.
G.Venkata Subbarao is appointed as Resolution Professional.

Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER (T) MEMBER (J)

Vamsi/Sridher
 IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH – 1
CP (IB) No. 197/95/HDB/2022

(Under Section 95 read with Section 60(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code,
2016 read with Rule 7(2) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating
Authority for Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantors to Corporate
Debtor) Rules, 2019.

In the matter of:

Pridhvi Asset Reconstruction
And Securitisation Company Ltd.,
Door No. 1-55, 4th Floor, Wing I “Raja Praasadamu”,
Masjid Banda Road, Kondapur, Hyderabad – 500084.
Rep by its Power of Attorney
Mr. K V Ramakrishna Prasad
… Petitioner/Financial Creditor
Versus
1. Mr. Kongara Naveen,
S/o Subba Rao
Flat No 502, KV Mansion,
Zero Line, Chandramoulinagar,
Guntur - 522007.
Also at:
3075, Denali Drive, Irving, Texas.
Tx-75063 USA
… Respondent No.1/Personal Guarantor

2. Sri Pavana Keerthi Hotels India Private Limited

Plot No.207, Model Colony,
S R Nagar,
Hyderabad-500 029.
… Respondent No.2/Corporate Debtor

DATE OF ORDER: 14.06.2023

 NCLT HYD, Bench-I
CP (IB) No. 197/95/HDB/2022
Date of Order. 14.06.2023

CORAM:-
DR. VENKATA RAMAKRISHNA BADARINATH NANDULA,
HON’BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
SH. CHARAN SINGH, HON’BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Appearance:-
For the Petitioner :- Shri VVSN Raju, Counsel.
For the Respondent No.2 :- Shri P. Pratap, Counsel.
Resolution Professional :- Shri Govada Venkata Subbarao.

PER: BENCH
ORDER

1. This instant petition is filed by the Financial Creditor under Section 95

read with section 60(2) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
(hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) read with Rule 7(2) of the
Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority for
Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantors to Corporate
Debtor) Rules, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as “Personal Guarantors
Insolvency Rules, 2019), seeking an order for initiation of the
Insolvency Resolution Process (“IR Process”) against Mr. Kongara
Naveen, who is the Personal Guarantor of M/s. Sri Pavana Keerthi
Hotels India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as “Corporate
Debtor”).

2. Averments made by the Petitioner:

2.1 It is averred that the Petitioner vide its Sanction letter dated 20.09.2014
has sanctioned working capital facility consisting of Cash Credit

2
 NCLT HYD, Bench-I
CP (IB) No. 197/95/HDB/2022
Date of Order. 14.06.2023

facility with a limit of Rs.19.28 cores for the purpose of establishment

of the hotel. The term loan was repayable in 94 monthly instalments
commencing from June 2015, the repayment period would end in the
month of March 2021 and the term loan is repayable with interest
which was lined to the base rate with a spread of 3% and 0.5% of TP.

2.2 It is averred that corporate debtor had failed to honor its obligations
under Composite Deed of Hypothecation for all facilities dated
20.10.2014 executed between the financial creditor and corporate
debtor. The loan account of Respondent No.2 was declared as the
renewal sanction also failed the accounts were classified as NPA on
29.09.2015.

2.3 It is averred that the bank recalled the term loan and filed OA 403 of
2017 on the file of the DRT Hyderabad-1 claiming an amount of
Rs.32,19,88,213/- as on the date of the suit and interest thereon on
contractual rate against Corporate Debtor and Guarantors. The Hon’ble
DRT after adjudicating the matter granted decree on 09.02.2019 along
with Recovery Certificate on 09.07.2019 for the said amount, then the
Recovery Officer attached to the DRT on 22.07.2020 issued a demand
notice to the judgment debtors for the payment of the said amount.

2.4 It is averred that the erstwhile Andhra Bank assigned the debt portfolio
of the Corporate Debtor in favour of the Financial Creditor vide its
assignment agreement dated 27.09.2017 which was duly registered
with the sub registrar concern and by virtue of this assignment the
Financial Creditor entered into the shoes of erstwhile Andhra Bank and

3
 NCLT HYD, Bench-I
CP (IB) No. 197/95/HDB/2022
Date of Order. 14.06.2023

entitled to recover the total dues with up to date interest as decreed by

the Hon’ble DRT. An amount of Rs. 25,71,79,268/- as on 06.06.2017
and interest thereon from that date @12% simple rate is due and
payable by the Corporate Debtor.

2.5 It is averred that Respondent No.1, Personal Guarantor executed a

Deed of Guarantee was also invoked by the Financial Creditor by
making a demand vide Form B Demand Notice dated 29.12.2021 under
Rule 7(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Rules, 2019 on
Respondent No.1 for making payment with up to date interest.

2.6 It is averred that the amounts which are due and payable by the
Respondent No.1 in the capacity of Personal Guarantor to the Financial
Creditor as on 30.11.2021 is Rs. 37,02,00,931/- + interest and charges
from 31.11.2021 as per the Personal Guarantee Agreements executed
by him and also liable to pay interest on the said amount from the said
date and also other charges and expenses.

2.7 It is averred that the Respondent No.2 was referred to this Tribunal for
CIRP process vide CP (IB).No. 153/7/HDB/2021 and the same was
admitted on 11.04.2022. The Respondent no.1 being the personal
guarantor, failed to pay the outstanding amount, financial creditor
herein while invoking the provisions of the I&B Code, 2016 had vide
Form B demand notice dated 22.07.2020 issued to the personal
guarantor , i.e Respondent No.1 requesting him to honor the terms of
the agreement. Despite receipt of the demand notice, Respondent No.1

4
 NCLT HYD, Bench-I
CP (IB) No. 197/95/HDB/2022
Date of Order. 14.06.2023

did not pay any amount. Thus the present application for initiation of
insolvency resolution process with respect to personal guarantor.

2.8 The Petitioner attached the following documents to prove the existence
of debt and amount in default: -

1. Term (Composite) Agreement dated 06.10.2014.

2. Guarantee Letters by Guarantors dated 20.10.2014
3. Credit Sanction intimation for term loan dated 20.09.2014
4. Mortgaged Documents dated 12.12.2014, 22.10.2014
5. Board Resolution passed for availing loan dated 27.09.2014
6. Demand Notice issued under SARFEASI Act dated 02.11.2015
7. Reply to the Demand Notice dated 28.12.2015
8. Assignment Agreement dated 27.09.2017
9. Board Resolution authorizing Sri K V Ramakrishna Prasad dated
20.09.2018
10.Order of Hon’ble Debt Recovery Tribunal – I Hyderabad dated
19.02.2019.
11.Letter given by the Company for settlement of the dues dated
16.01.2020
12.Demand Notice issued by Recovery Officer DRT for Decreed
amount dated 22.07.2020.
13.Statement of default recorded at CIBIL dated 31.03.2020
14.Form B demand notice dated 29.12.2021 along with postal
receipts and tracking report sent to Indian and USA Address.
15.Statement of Accounts

5
 NCLT HYD, Bench-I
CP (IB) No. 197/95/HDB/2022
Date of Order. 14.06.2023

3. Counter filed by Respondent No.1/Personal Guarantor

3.1 It is stated that all the averments and allegations made by the petitioner
are baseless. It is stated that the Demand Notice was issued on
01.11.2015 and in suppression of the said fact, the financial creditor to
mislead this Tribunal stated in Part-III of Form-C, under the heading
particulars of the Debt, that the default accrued on the date on which
15 days’ time period has been expired from the demand notice dated
22.07.2020 issued by the Recovery Officer of DRT-I, Hyderabad.

3.2 It is stated that the dates on which the default took place and the cause
of action began to run which exhausted the prescribed limitations:
Sl. Date of Particulars of Event Date of Expiry
No. Event of Limitation
1. 31.10.2015 Account of the Corporate Debtor is Cause of Action
declared as NPA began to run
2. 01.11.2015 Demand Notice u/s.13(2) of the 31.10.2018
SARFAESI Act, 2002 was issued to
the Personal Guarantors
3. 06.10.2014 General Form of Guarantee is 31.10.2018
invoked on 01.11.2015
4. 25.02.2022 Demand Notice in Form-B (Rule-7
of the IBC rules 2019) is served on
the Personal Guarantor after expiry
of limitation of 3 years from the
date of first invocation of the
Guarantee on 01.11.2015

3.3 It is stated that in Articles 55, 113 and 137 of the Limitation Act, clearly
specifies that cause of action in respect of the breach any agreement or
contract will began to run from the date the cause of action arise. It is
further stated that the present petition is time barred, as the Personal

6
 NCLT HYD, Bench-I
CP (IB) No. 197/95/HDB/2022
Date of Order. 14.06.2023

Guarantor had never admitted or acknowledged the alleged debt during

the period from 31.10.2015 to 31.10.2018 (3 years) and prayed to
dismiss the petition as barred by limitation with costs.

3.4 It is stated that, in Syndicate Bank Vs. Channaveerappa Beleri & Ors
(Appeal (civil) 6894 of 1997, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that :
“9. A guarantor's liability depends upon the terms of his contract.
A continuing guarantee' is different from an ordinary guarantee.
There is also a difference between a guarantee which stipulates
that the guarantor is liable to pay only on a demand by the
creditor, and a guarantee which does not contain such a
condition. Further, depending on the terms of guarantee, the
liability of a guarantor may be limited to a particular sum, instead
of the liability being to the same extent as that of the principal
debtor. The liability to pay may arise, on the principal debtor and
guarantor, at the same time or at different points of time. A claim
may be even time- barred against the principal debtor, but still
enforceable against the guarantor. The parties may agree that the
liability of a guarantor shall arise at a later point of time than
that of the principal debtor. We have referred to these aspects
only to underline the fact that the extent of liability under a
guarantee as also the question as to when the liability of a
guarantor will arise, would depend purely on the terms of the
contract."

Similarly at paragraph 11 it is observed as follows:

“11. But in the case on hand, the guarantee deeds specifically

state that the guarantors agree to pay and satisfy the Bank on
demand and interest will be payable by the guarantors only from
the date of demand. In a case where the guarantee is payable on
demand, as held in Bradford [(1918) 2 KB 833: 88 LJKB 85: 119
LT 727 (CA)] and Hartland [(1863) I H & C 667: 7 LT 792], the
limitation begins to run when the demand is made and the
guarantor commits breach by not complying with the demand.”

7
 NCLT HYD, Bench-I
CP (IB) No. 197/95/HDB/2022
Date of Order. 14.06.2023

It is stated that, when the demand is made by the creditor on the

guarantor on 01.11.2015 pursuant to classification of Loan Account as
NPA on 31.10.2015, the guarantor becomes liable in pursuance of a
demand validly made in time, the creditor can sue the guarantor within
three years thereafter i.e., on or before 31.10.2018 under a guarantee
which requires a demand, as a condition precedent for the liability of
the guarantor and if such debt had already become time-barred against
the guarantor on 31.10.2018, the question of creditor again demanding
payment thereafter under the guise of Section 95 of the IBC law,
against the guarantor would not arise.

3.5 It is stated that according to the financial creditor, the alleged debt was
assigned by the erstwhile Andhra Bank on 27.09.2017 and therefore
assuming that the financial creditor has a cause of action to initiate the
CIRP proceedings against the Personal Guarantor on 27.09.2017, still
the present petition is barred by limitation as the cause of action is
ended on 26.09.2020 and apparently the present company petition since
before this Tribunal on 21.05.2022 the same is manifestly barred by
limitation.

3.6 It is stated that the Respondent No.2 has filed an Appeal before the
Hon’ble NCLAT, Chennai Bench in Company Appeal (AT) (CHE)
224 of 2022 against CIRP order made by this Tribunal and the
Appellate Court passed interim direction that the Committee of
Creditors shall not proceed further till 19.09.2022 and further directed
the Resolution Professional of this Respondent No.2 Company to
maintain as a going concern.

8
 NCLT HYD, Bench-I
CP (IB) No. 197/95/HDB/2022
Date of Order. 14.06.2023

3.7 It is stated that the present petition is filed under section 95, 96(1),
97(5), 99(1), 99(2) and 100 of the Code, the vires of which is under
challenge in a batch of Writ Petitions pending before the Hon’ble
Supreme court of India in WP(Civil) No. 307 of 2022 and batch,
wherein the Hon’ble Supreme court vide its orders dated 29.04.2022
was pleased to pass interim direction as follows:
“In the meanwhile, petitioner shall not transfer, alienate, encumber,
or dispose of any of his properties or his legal rights or beneficial
interest therein and the resolution professional shall nor proceed
with filing of the report.”

Therefore stated that all further proceedings in this petition and the
impugned order dated 21.06.2022 passed by this Tribunal shall be
deferred till the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India finally adjudicates the
Constitutional Vires of the Sections 95, 96(1), 97(5), 99(1), 99(2) and
100 of the Code in Writ Petitions in WP(Civil) No.307 of 2022 and
batch.

3.8 It is stated that the guarantee given by the respondent herein under the
General Form of Guarantee dated 06.10.2014, it is categorically
mentioned in clear language that, the “Provided nevertheless that our
liability under this Guarantee shall not exceed in the whole sum of
Rs.19,28,00,000/- (Rupees Nineteen Crores Twenty-Eight Lakhs
Only) apart from and in addition to all interest, Banking, Law and
other costs, charges and expenses above referred to”. Therefore, the
demand of Rs.37.00 Crores by the Financial Creditor is illegal and
against the Terms & Conditions of the guarantee executed by the
Respondent and prayed to dismiss with exemplary costs.

9
 NCLT HYD, Bench-I
CP (IB) No. 197/95/HDB/2022
Date of Order. 14.06.2023

4. Report filed by the Respondent No.2/Resolution Professional of

Corporate Debtor:

4.1 It is stated that the Resolution Professional submits report with

recommendations for acceptance of the application for initiating
insolvency resolution process against Mr.Kongara Naveen, Personal
Guarantor to the Corporate Debtor for recovery of unpaid dues
aggregating Rs.38,83,26,522/- (Rupees Thirty-Eight Crores Eighty-
Three Lakhs Twenty-Six Thousand Five Hundred and Twenty-Two
Only) with interest and costs up to 12.07.2022.

4.2 It is stated that in terms of Section 43 of Indian Contract Act, 1872,

which reads as:
“43. Any one of joint promisors may be compelled to perform –
When two or more persons make a joint promise, the promise may,
in the absence of express agreement to the contrary, compel any (one
or more) of such joint promisors to perform the whole of the
promise.”

As one of the personal guarantors, the Respondent no.1 is liable jointly

and severally to discharge the un-discharged liability of the Respondent
No.2.

4.3 It is stated that the relevant evidence of default or non-payment of debt

is evidenced through the Statement of account up to 12.07.2022 sent
by the Financial Creditor to the Resolution Professional, advising that
no repayments were received into the accounts of the Corporate
Debtor/ Respondent No.2, after the demand notice dated 29.12.2021

10
 NCLT HYD, Bench-I
CP (IB) No. 197/95/HDB/2022
Date of Order. 14.06.2023

raised. Therefore, the Resolution Professional recommends for the

admission of the Petition against the Respondent No.2 and prayed to
commence moratorium on the Respondent No.2 as enshrined in
Section 101(1) of the IBC, 2016.

5. Rejoinder filed by the Petitioner to the reply filed by the

Respondent No.1/Personal Guarantor

5.1 It is stated that after invoking the Guarantee, the Respondent No.1
failed to pay to the Creditor and failed to honor its commitment under
the said Guarantee Deed. The Judgment of the Debts Recovery
Tribunal-I, Hyderabad dated 19.02.2019 and the notice issued by the
Recovery Officer dated 22.07.2020 have given fresh cause of action
for filing the Company Petition against the Respondent No.1.

5.2 It is stated that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dena Bank
Vs. C.Shivakumar Reddy and Anr. 2021 SCC Online SC 543 (Para
No.141) decided on 04.08.2021, held that a Judgment and order/decree
of the Debts Recovery Tribunal and Recovery Certificate give rise to a
fresh cause of action from the date of such Judgement and
order/decree/issuance of recovery certificate. Further, as per the suo
moto order issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of
Miscellaneous Application No. 21 of 2022 in Miscellaneous
Application No. 665 of 2021 in Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of
2020 on 10.01.2022 the limitation period with effect from 15.03.2020
to 28.02.2022 has been saved and the said period has to be added to the
limitation period.

11
 NCLT HYD, Bench-I
CP (IB) No. 197/95/HDB/2022
Date of Order. 14.06.2023

5.3 It is stated that the Respondent No.2 has filed an Appeal before the
Hon’ble NCLAT, Chennai Bench in Company Appeal (AT) (CHE)
224 of 2022 against CIRP order made by this Tribunal in C.P. (IB).No.
153/2021 against the Respondent No.2. This contention is also not
sustainable in law in view of the decision by the Hon’ble NCLAT,
Delhi and concurred by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of
State Bank of India Vs. Mahendra Kumar Jajodia, 2022 SCC Online
NCLAT 58 (Para 11). The Hon’ble NCLAT’s observation as
concurred by the Apex Court is the said matter is as follows:

"The Adjudicating Authority erred in holding that since no CIRP

or Liquidation Proceeding of the Corporate Debtor are pending
the application under Section 95(1) filed by the Appellant is not
maintainable. The Application having been filed under Section
95(1) and the Adjudicating Authority for application under
Section 95(1) as referred in Section 60(1) being the NCLT, the
Application filed by the Appellant was fully maintainable and
could not have been rejected only on the ground that no CIRP or
Liquidation Proceeding of the Corporate Debtor are pending
before the NCLT. In result, we set aside the order dated 05
October, 2021 passed by the Adjudicating Authority. The
Application filed by the Appellant under Section 95(1) of the Code
is revived before the NCLT which may be proceeded in
accordance with the law"

Therefore, the Company petition is well maintainable against the

Respondent no.1 inspite of the Appeal filed which is pending before
the Hon'ble NCLAT, Chennai.

5.4 It is stated that the extent of liability of the Respondent No.1 to the
Petitioner as made in Para No.14 is also unsustainable as the Guarantee

12
 NCLT HYD, Bench-I
CP (IB) No. 197/95/HDB/2022
Date of Order. 14.06.2023

Deed executed by the Respondent No.1 clearly mentions the nature of

liability, principal amount of Rs.19.28 Crores, interest, costs, charges,
expenses, etc. Under the Guarantee Deed, the Respondent No.1
undertook that the said sum of Rs.19.28 Crores is apart from and in
addition to all interest, banking, law and other costs, charges and
expenses. It is further prayed to admit the Application and order
initiation of Insolvency Resolution Process against the Respondent
No.1.

6. Pursuant to framing of Personal Guarantors Insolvency Rules, 2019

which came into effect, permitting the Petitioner Bank to institute IR
Process against the Personal Guarantors, the Petitioner Bank issued a
demand notice dated 29.12.2021 to the Personal Guarantor, in Form B
of the Code demanding payment of the amount in default along with
acknowledgement receipt.

7. On presentation of this instant petition, this Adjudicating Authority on

21.06.2022 granted interim moratorium and has appointed Shri. Govada
Venkata Subba Rao, as Resolution Professional, directing him to file
his report within ten days from the date of his appointment, in terms of
the Section 99 of the Code, 2016 and directed the Petitioner to issue
notice to the Personal Guarantor and notice was sent through registered
post and the same was delivered. The Resolution Professional has filed
his report, recommending the admission of the Petition under Section
95 of the Code, 2016. The Resolution Professional in his report stated
that the Petitioner has sent the demand notice in Form-B dated
29.12.2021. Based on the facts the RP is recommending for approval of

13
 NCLT HYD, Bench-I
CP (IB) No. 197/95/HDB/2022
Date of Order. 14.06.2023

the Petition filed by financial creditor against the personal guarantor

Shri Kongara Naveen, to the Corporate debtor M/s.Sri Pavana Keerthi
Hotels India Private Limited.

8. In the light of the aforesaid factual matrix the point arises for our
consideration is:
Whether an Insolvency Resolution Process can be ordered against
the Personal Guarantor under Section 100 of the Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Code, 2016?

9. We have heard the Learned Counsel Shri VVSN Raju, for the Petitioner
and Learned Resolution Professional/ Respondent No.2 Shri. Govada
Venkata Subbarao and Learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 Shri
P.Pratap, and perused the record.

10. At the outset it may be stated that the Petitioner Bank has initiated
Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor
i.e., M/s. Sri Pavana Keethi Hotels India Private Limited vide CP (IB)
No. 153/7/HDB/2021 under Section 7 of the Code, 2016 which was
admitted by this Adjudicating Authority vide order dated 11.04.2022
and the instant petition is initiated against the Personal Guarantor of the
Corporate Debtor. However, Respondent No.1 has raised certain
objections stating that OTS and resolution plan are under consideration
and thus prayed to hold the instant Application. IRP in his report has
observed that creditor has send demand notice in Form-B on 29.12.2021
to Respondent No.1 intimating the total amount of debt including
interest or penalties due as on 29.12.2021 is Rs.37,02,00,931/-. But

14
 NCLT HYD, Bench-I
CP (IB) No. 197/95/HDB/2022
Date of Order. 14.06.2023

personal guarantor failed to repay the amount due towards the creditor
within 14 days from the date of receipt of demand notice and
recommended initiation of Insolvency Resolution Process against R-1
in terms of Section 99 (7) of IBC, 2016.

11. Therefore, in the light of un-deniable factors this Tribunal carefully

examined the report of Resolution Professional. As per the report it is
clear that the personal guarantor has not offered any repayment plan.
Personal guarantor has not filed any objections to the report of the
Resolution Professional. We therefore, find no reason to reject the
report of Resolution Professional. Hence we admit the petition.

12. Therefore, in the light of our discussions above, on perusal of the record
and case laws, we consider it is a fit case to order insolvency resolution
process against Respondent No.1/Personal Guarantor.

13. Hence, the instant Company Petition vide CP (IB) No.

197/95/HDB/2022 filed under the provisions of Section 95 of Code,
2016 is hereby admitted under the provisions of Section 100 of the
Code, 2016 and Insolvency Resolution Process is initiated against Shri
Kongara Naveen, the Personal Guarantor, and moratorium is declared
in relation to all debts, which begins from the date of admission of the
instant petition and shall cease to have effect at the end of the period of
180 days, as provided under Section 101 of the Code, 2016. During the
moratorium period-
a) Any pending legal action or proceeding in respect of any debt shall be
deemed to have been stayed;

15
 NCLT HYD, Bench-I
CP (IB) No. 197/95/HDB/2022
Date of Order. 14.06.2023

b) The Creditors shall not initiate any legal action or legal proceedings
in respect of any debt; and
c) The debtor shall not transfer, alienate, encumber or dispose of any of
her assets or her legal rights or beneficial interest therein;
d) The provisions of this Section shall not apply to such transactions as
may be notified by the Central Government in consultation with any
financial sector regulator.
e) The Petitioner herein, has proposed the name of Shri. Govada Venkata
Subbarao, IBBI/IPA-003/IP-N00358/2021-2022/13753 insolvency
Professional to act as Resolution Professional, who has given his
consent dated 01.05.2022 in Form-A. Hence, this Tribunal appoints:
Shri. Govada Venkata Subbarao, IBBI/IPA-003/IP-N00358/2021-
2022/13753, email id: govada.subbarao1@gmail.com, Address: Rajiv
Swagruha Apartments, Block A 05, Flot 106, Classic Diamond
Towers, Anand Nagar, GSI Bandlaguda, Next to D-Mart, Hyderabad,
Telangana – 500068, Mobile No.8019062958.
f) The Resolution Professional is directed to cause public notice
published on behalf of the Adjudicating Authority within 7 days from
the date of uploading of this order on the website of NCLT,
Hyderabad, inviting the claims from all creditors, who shall register
their claims as provided under Section 103 of the Code within 21 days
of such issuance. The notice shall contain the necessary information
as provided under Section 102(2) of the Code. The publication of
notice shall be made in newspapers, one in English and other in
vernacular (Telugu) which have wide circulation in the State where
the Personal Guarantor and Corporate Debtor resides. The Resolution
Professional shall furnish two spare copies of the notice to the

16
 NCLT HYD, Bench-I
CP (IB) No. 197/95/HDB/2022
Date of Order. 14.06.2023

Registry. One shall be placed on our website by the Registry and the
other shall be affixed in the premises of this Adjudicating Authority.
g) The Resolution Professional in exercise of the powers conferred under
the Section 104 shall prepare a list of creditors within 30 days from
the date of the notice. The Personal Guarantor shall prepare, in
consultation with the Resolution professional, a repayment plan
containing a proposal to the creditors for restructuring of her debts or
affairs as provided under Section 105 which shall include the
provisions for payment of fee to the Resolution Professional. The
Resolution Professional shall submit the repayment plan along with
his report on the plan to this Adjudicating Authority within a period
of 21 days from the last date of submission of claims as provided under
Section 106.
h) In case the Resolution Professional recommends that a meeting of the
creditors is not required to be summoned, he shall record the reasons
thereof. If the Resolution Professional is of the opinion that the
meeting of creditors should be summoned, he shall specify the details
as provided under Section 106(3). The date of meeting shall not be
less that fourteen days or more than 28 days from the date of
submission of the Report under Sub-section (1) of Section 106 of the
Code, for which at least 14 days’ notice to the creditors (as per the list
prepared) shall be issued by all modes. Such notice must contain the
details as provided under the provisions of Section 107 of the Code.
i) The meeting of the creditors shall be conducted in accordance with the
provisions Sections 109, 110 and 111. The Resolution Professional
shall prepare a report of the meeting of the creditors on repayment plan
with all details as provided under Section 112 and submit the same to

17
 NCLT HYD, Bench-I
CP (IB) No. 197/95/HDB/2022
Date of Order. 14.06.2023

the Authority, copies of which shall be provided to the guarantor and

the creditors. It is made clear that the Resolution Professional shall
perform his functions and duties in compliance with the Code of
Conduct provided under Section 208 of the Code.
j) The Petitioner is directed to communicate this order to the Resolution
Professional appointed in the instant Company Petition immediately.

Sd/- Sd/-
(Sh.Charan Singh) (Dr.Venkata Ramakrishna Badarinath Nandula)
Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)

Sridher

18