SAI RAMAKRISHNA KARUTURI Vs. ICICI BANK LTD

JUDGEMENT

(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 and 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 and ANOTHER, (2018) 17 SCC 394, which reads as under: