XYZ Bank has given loan of ₹20 crore to AB Ltd. The loan is duly guaranteed by personal guarantee of two relatives of directors. The loan went in to default and the Bank decided to file application against personal guara

The above facts relates to Keb Hana Bank (Petitioner) vs. Rohit Nath (CD) (IBC SR.NO 2643/2020) decided on 22nd October, 2020 at Debt Recovery Tribunal-II, Chennai. (a) The contention of the applicant is that as per section 60 of the IBC, the insolvency resolution has to be initiated before adjudicating authority having territorial jurisdiction over the place where the registered office of the corporate person is located. However, this contention was unfounded as section 60 deals with proceedings initiated against the corporate debtor whereas have separate forum is clothed with the power to adjudicate. The present proceedings are against guarantor to the corporate debtor alone. As far as the proceedings before this Tribunal is concerned, under section 60 of IBC code have no application. The present application is filed by the applicant showing the address of the respondent where they have been served with the communications and the same falls within the territorial of the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. Hence, this Tribunal is of the view that there is no force in contention of the respondent that this Tribunal lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain this matter. (b) As per section 99 of IBC, the resolution professional shall examine the application referred to in section 94 or section 95, as the case may be, within ten days of his appointment, and submit a report to the Adjudicating Authority recommending for approval or rejection of the application. Section 99(2) provides that where the application has been filed under section 95, the resolution professional may require the debtor to prove repayment of the debt claimed as unpaid by the creditor by furnishing - evidence of electronic transfer of the unpaid amount from the bank account of the debtor; evidence of encashment of a cheque issued by the debtor; or a signed acknowledgment by the creditor accepting receipt of dues. As per section 99(2), it is crystal clear that the resolution professional may require the debtor to furnish the details about the repayment and there is nothing to suggest that it is made mandatory to the RP to call for from the debtor the details of repayment. The word used "may" cannot be construed as mandatory one and it gives only discretionary however to the RP. In view of section 99(2), which does not create a mandatory obligation on the RP, the contention of the respondent is that non-compliance of section 99(2) vitiates the proceedings is unfounded. Having entered into the above findings, it is viewed that the application filed by the applicant under section 95 of the Act can be admitted and accordingly the same is admitted.