Published: · Source checked:
Rejection of Anurag P. Gupta’s repayment plan led NCLT Mumbai to terminate his personal insolvency resolution process and discharge its RP. The order recorded the end of the Section 101 moratorium and the parties’ entitlement to seek bankruptcy separately. It did not itself declare the guarantor bankrupt or discharge his underlying debts. Official order, paragraphs 17–26.
Case identity and operative outcome
| Item | Verified detail |
|---|---|
| Tribunal | NCLT Mumbai Bench, Court-V |
| Members | Vinay Goel, Judicial; Charanjeet Singh Gulati, Technical |
| Application | IA(IBC)3718/2026 in CP(IB)1249/2021 |
| Applicant | Purusottam Behera, RP of Anurag P. Gupta |
| Personal guarantor | Anurag P. Gupta, in relation to Gupta Energy Private Limited |
| Order date | |
| Result | Section 112 report taken on record; process terminated; RP discharged; bankruptcy application route preserved |
The underlying creditor petition had been admitted under Section 100 on 24 April 2025. The later application placed the creditors’ rejection of the proposed repayment plan before the Tribunal and requested closure of the resolution process and discharge of the professional. These are different procedural steps; this September application was not the original admission petition. Paragraphs 1–3.
Read the voting percentages with their denominators
The record stated that 84.51% of total voting share voted against the final plan and 15.49% did not vote. Accordingly, all votes actually cast were against it. The ₹5 crore figure described the proposed repayment plan, not an amount distributed or an award made by the Tribunal. Paragraphs 5–7.
The Bench applied Section 111’s affirmative requirement of more than three-fourths in value of creditors present and voting. The difference between total voting share and votes cast matters: saying simply that 84.51% was the statutory rejection threshold would misdescribe the mechanism. The plan failed to obtain the required affirmative approval. Paragraphs 13–16.
For an RP reporting a vote, the creditor list, attendance, non-voting share and voting result should be reconciled rather than compressed into one unexplained percentage. That is an analytical lesson from the record, not an alternative statutory voting test.
The report and notice process preceded judicial closure
The Tribunal considered the Section 112 report and compliance with notification of the creditors’ decision. It recorded that the personal guarantor had been notified, including through the advance-service email referred to in the order. It did not treat the adverse vote alone as dispensing with the report or notice process. Paragraphs 14–17.
The chronology also included an earlier appellate extension. This note does not independently reconstruct every extension or calculate a different process-expiry date from the recitals. The primary point is the actual relief granted on the application and the reports the Tribunal considered sufficient for that purpose.
Bankruptcy was available through a separate application
The Bench referred to Section 115(2), under which rejection of a repayment plan permits the debtor and creditors to seek bankruptcy under ChapterIV, together with Section 121(1)(b). Its operative order stated that the creditors and debtor were entitled to initiate those proceedings. Paragraphs 18–22.
An entitlement to apply is not the same as a bankruptcy order already made. A reader should not infer appointment of a bankruptcy trustee, adjudication of a new application, realisation of assets or a discharge order from this decision. Those matters require their own primary records and applicable procedural steps.
The professional discharged by paragraph 24 was the Resolution Professional. That wording is not a discharge of the personal guarantor from debt. Confusing the two would reverse the practical effect of the order.
The Section 101 direction is distinct from interim moratorium
Paragraph 23 recorded that the Section 101 moratorium concerning the guarantor’s debts and assets would cease from the date of this order. This note reports that direction as given; it does not certify which later recovery proceedings were filed or their outcome. Paragraphs 21–24.
Section 101 concerns the moratorium following admission. It should not be confused with Section 96’s interim-moratorium stage. The 2026 Amendment Act inserted Section 96(4) concerning applications in respect of personal guarantors to corporate debtors. This case note does not use a historical admission or this closure order to promise interim protection for a fresh filing. Official2026 Amendment Act, section 51.
For related treatment of that distinct amendment issue, see the existing practitioner note on Section 96(4) and pending personal-guarantor applications. Its proposition should be checked against the live matter rather than imported into the different Section 101 question decided here.
Practical records to preserve after rejection
The source-derived file should keep the final plan, creditor list and voting record, Section 112 report, evidence of notice, the termination order and proof that copies were supplied. The order required the RP to make copies available to creditors and the guarantor within one week, and directed an IBBI register-related communication. This is the order’s specific requirement, not a general deadline calculated for another proceeding. Paragraph 25.
Did the guarantor become bankrupt automatically?
No. The order preserved the right to initiate bankruptcy proceedings. It did not itself adjudicate a bankruptcy application.
Did discharge of the RP cancel the guarantor’s liability?
No. Paragraph 24 discharged the professional from the resolution process; it was not a debt-discharge order for the guarantor.
Was the ₹5 crore plan implemented?
The plan was rejected. The figure describes the proposal and should not be reported as a recovery or distribution achieved.
Primary source and limits
The official 2 September 2026 order, particularly paragraphs 13–26, supports the reported outcome. Primary verification was completed on 1 November 2026. Targeted official-source checks did not establish a later bankruptcy order or appellate treatment of this decision. That limited result does not prove such proceedings are absent.