Published: · Source checked:
Where the corporate debtor's CIRP was pending before NCLT Chandigarh, the personal-guarantor case could not proceed before a different Bench in Delhi. In Kamlesh Rani Singla v. Praveen Kumar Garg, NCLAT set aside the refusal of transfer and quashed the Delhi proceeding, while preserving liberty to proceed lawfully before the appropriate forum. It did not extinguish the alleged debt. Judgment, paragraphs 18–26.
Order and actual disposition
| Point | Verified record |
|---|---|
| Tribunal | NCLAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi |
| Members | Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Arun Baroka and Indevar Pandey |
| Appeal | Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 275 of 2026 |
| Order date | |
| Corporate debtor | Laxmi Pipes Limited |
| Corporate CIRP forum | NCLT Chandigarh Bench-II |
| Personal-guarantor proceeding challenged | CP(IB) No. 419/ND/2023 before NCLT New Delhi Bench-II |
| Transfer refusal challenged | Order dated 5 December 2025 in TA(IBC)-50(PB)/2024 |
| Relief | Transfer-refusal order set aside; Delhi proceeding quashed; liberty for lawful proceedings in the proper jurisdiction |
The relief requires precise reporting. Although the dispute arose from a transfer application, the final order did not simply say that the Delhi docket stood transferred. Paragraph 26 quashed it and gave liberty for proceedings in accordance with law before the appropriate NCLT. Official judgment.
The pending corporate proceeding supplied the statutory connection
The NCLAT's reasoning centred on Section 60(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Where CIRP or liquidation of the corporate debtor is pending before NCLT, the provision directs the related corporate- or personal-guarantor insolvency matter to that tribunal.
On the facts accepted in this appeal, the corporate CIRP was pending at Chandigarh and the guarantor proceeding had been initiated in New Delhi. NCLAT treated continuation before the other Bench as a jurisdictional defect, with consolidation promoting consistency and avoiding parallel determinations. Paragraphs 18–20 and 23–25.
The pending-CIRP qualification belongs with the rule. This note does not decide every forum question where no corporate CIRP or liquidation is pending, or where the relationship between the guarantor and the corporate debtor is contested.
The President's transfer power was not confined as NCLT had assumed
The transfer refusal had relied on a restrictive understanding of Rule 16(d) of the NCLT Rules, 2016. NCLAT read that administrative transfer power with Section 60 and the definition of Bench. It rejected a construction that prevented movement between the relevant territorial Benches despite the statutory consolidation requirement.
The tribunal did not treat an administrative rule as permission to disregard the Code's jurisdictional command. Its reasoning explains why the statutory setting must be identified before using a general transfer provision. Paragraphs 20–24.
This article reports the appellate construction of the rule in this insolvency setting. It does not independently audit every transfer category under the Companies Act or every later authority on the President's powers.
A jurisdictional success was not a merits discharge
The NCLAT found that the Delhi proceeding should not continue and quashed it. It nevertheless left the respondents liberty to bring proceedings as per law before NCLT having appropriate jurisdiction. That leaves questions of a properly filed proceeding, capacity, maintainability and substantive liability to their own determination.
The source describes the originating applicant as an operational creditor in its liberty direction. This note does not use that description to formulate a general rule that every operational creditor may successfully invoke Section 95 against any alleged guarantor. Eligibility, the guarantee, the debt and the applicable procedure require separate verification. Paragraphs 25–26.
Likewise, a change of forum does not establish that a guarantee was invalid, repayment occurred or every limitation question was resolved in the guarantor's favour.
How to screen a guarantor proceeding before debating the debt
Veritect's analysis suggests first identifying the corporate debtor, the guarantee relationship and the actual pending corporate case. Obtain the corporate admission and current-status orders, rather than relying only on a company name or an old cause list. Then map the guarantor proceeding and requested forum to the statutory consolidation provision.
For a jurisdiction objection, make the requested relief clear: transfer, rejection, quashing or liberty to institute a fresh matter are not interchangeable. This judgment shows why reporting only that the guarantor won would obscure the procedural result and the preserved route for the other side.
Questions practitioners may ask
Did NCLAT hold that personal-guarantor cases may always be filed anywhere the guarantor lives?
No. It applied the statutory connection to the Bench hearing the pending corporate CIRP in this record.
Was the Delhi case merely transferred by the operative order?
Paragraph 26 quashed the Delhi proceeding and preserved liberty to proceed as per law in the proper jurisdiction. That is the relief reported here.
Did quashing eliminate the alleged guarantee debt?
The order decided jurisdiction and the challenged transfer refusal. It did not declare the debt paid or extinguished, and it expressly preserved lawful further proceedings.
Source and subsequent-treatment scope
The official NCLAT judgment of 9 September 2026, particularly paragraphs 18–26, was checked on 1 November 2026. The primary statutory text of Section 60 was also checked. Conflicting date recitals in the submissions were not used to reconstruct a corporate-admission chronology unnecessary to the holding. This note does not certify the absence of a later appeal, stay or fresh proceeding.