Personal Guarantor’s Locus Objection Awaits Section 100 Stage, Not RP Appointment: NCLAT Principal Bench

NCLAT Principal Bench refused to interfere with appointment of a resolution professional against personal guarantors, holding that objections to a minority debenture holder’s standing must be decided only after the professional’s report.

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, has held that an objection by personal guarantors that a minority debenture holder had no standing to file under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 cannot be decided when a resolution professional is appointed. The adjudicatory stage begins only after the professional’s report, under Section 100 [Vinod Doulatani & Ors. v. Iifl One Value Fund- Series B & Ors., 2026-juristway.com-3341-NCLAT(New Delhi-[PB])-IBC].

The appeals were heard by Justice Yogesh Khanna, Barun Mitra, Member (Technical), and Ajai Das Mehrotra, Member (Technical); the judgment was written by Justice Khanna. On 19 Jun 2026, NCLT Mumbai appointed a resolution professional under Section 97 and declared an interim moratorium under Section 96. It directed the professional to examine the application, including limitation. The guarantees, dated 14 Oct 2021 and 12 May 2022, had been given to the debenture trustee, IDBI Trusteeship Services Limited. The creditor claimed about ₹206.42 crore as on 31 Mar 2026.

The guarantors argued that they had no contract of guarantee with the respondent. Under the Debenture Trust Deed, only the trustee, acting on the instructions of the majority holders, could declare default, invoke the guarantee or start insolvency proceedings. The respondent held only 24.51% of the voting share, and the NCLT had reserved this objection but then appointed the professional without deciding it.

The Tribunal followed Dilip B Jiwrajka v Union of India (2024), under which no judicial adjudication takes place at the stages of Sections 95 to 99. It also relied on its own rulings in Canara BANK Vs Uma Kumari Singh (2025), CL Sharma V Bank of Maharashtra (2024), Central Bank of India Vs Deepen Arun Parekh and Prabhaben Ravjibhai Harkani Vs Bank of Baroda (Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No.1002/2025). Issues such as jurisdictional facts and limitation are to be raised when the Adjudicating Authority hears the application under Section 100.

Holding that the adjudicatory process starts only after the report is filed, the Tribunal dismissed both appeals.

2026-juristway.com-3341-NCLAT(New Delhi-[PB])-IBC