The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai, has admitted personal insolvency proceedings against Poonam Anoop Wadhera. She is the personal guarantor of Frost International Limited. The case relates to a loan default of ₹671.56 crore.
The order was passed by a bench comprising Judicial Member Sushil Mahadeorao Kochey and Technical Member Prabhat Kumar. The petition was filed by Canara Bank under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
The tribunal said that after examining all records and documents, it has admitted the petition. With this, the insolvency resolution process against Poonam Anoop Wadhera, as a personal guarantor, has officially begun.
The case arose from credit facilities given to Frost International Limited between January and July 2014. These included both fund-based and non-fund-based working capital loans. The loans were secured by company assets, mortgages on properties, and personal guarantees. The guarantees were executed on May 12, 2014, by several guarantors.
After the company failed to repay the loans, the account was declared a non-performing asset (NPA). The bank then invoked the personal guarantee and issued a demand notice on January 21, 2019, under the SARFAESI Act, asking the borrower and guarantors to clear the dues.
Poonam Wadhera opposed the insolvency plea on several grounds. She claimed that the case was time-barred, that legal notices were not properly served, and that she had not given informed consent. She also said her role in the company was limited and that she held only a 0.09% share. She further referred to a civil suit filed in the Delhi High Court challenging the validity of the guarantee deed.
She said that the personal guarantee was executed in the year 2013 and renewed in 2015 solely on account of a jointly owned property being mortgaged, and that she was informed that her signature was mere a formality connected to mortgage properties.
It was further submitted that the guarantee was signed without informed consent and under pressure linked to her inherited property, and that material facts regarding the financial position and functioning of the Corporate Debtor were never disclosed to her.
It was also contended that she was never informed of any defaults, restructuring, enhancement of credit facilities, or invocation of the guarantee, and that she received demand notices only in December 2023. It also submitted that repeated requests made by her family for release of the mortgaged property and for removal of her name as guarantor were ignored, despite assurances allegedly given by the promoters of the Corporate Debtor.
The tribunal rejected all her objections. It said the challenge to the guarantee was raised too late and was not supported by strong evidence. The tribunal observed that without clear proof, such late objections cannot cancel a legal obligation under a valid guarantee.
Finding no violation of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, the tribunal admitted the application. It also declared a moratorium under Section 101 of the Code and appointed Pramod Kumar Ramesh Ladda as the resolution professional.
- Download Court Order PDF (This PDF is available for Premium Users Only. Click here to join premium)
