NCLT Ahmedabad Refuses Travel Relief To Personal Guarantor With ₹2717 Crore Liability

The National Company Law Tribunal at Ahmedabad, on 12 February rejected a travel permission plea filed by Sunil Surendrabhai Kakkad, a personal guarantor facing liabilities of Rs. 2,717.88 crore, holding that his proposal to travel abroad for employment could jeopardise the time-bound bankruptcy process.

A Bench comprising Judicial Member Chitra Hankare and Technical Member Dr. Velamur G. Venkata Chalapathy held that the applicant's presence was “absolutely necessary for the further inquiry and day to day progress of the proceedings.”

Kakkad is the personal guarantor to credit facilities availed by Sai InfoSystem (India) Limited, Atrium Infocomm Private Limited, and Click Telecom Private Limited. His earlier repayment proposal of Rs. 50 lakh against admitted liabilities of Rs. 2,717.88 crore was rejected by creditors, and his personal insolvency was admitted on 12 September 2025.

He sought permission to travel to the UAE for 15 days every month to execute a purchase order from Hypermax General Trading Company LLC. He claimed that the assignment would fetch AED 3,000 (approximately Rs. 72,400), along with Rs. 1,00,000 per month.

The Bankruptcy Trustee and Bank of Baroda opposed the application, submitting that asset verification was incomplete, financial records were pending, and Kakkad's presence was required under Sections 132 and 133 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.

Accepting these submissions, the Bench held that the “monetary benefits of the Personal Guarantor are negligible.”

The Tribunal also expressed doubts about the genuineness of the employment arrangement, observing that the purchase order appeared suspicious as it carried only a Post Box address and contained irregular terms such as “13 months plus six months.” It held:

“There is no merit of allowing this application and no surety amount quantify the risk of allowing applicant to go abroad for earning an amount which is likely to be spent fully (past records) jeopardising various hearings including disposal of matters before the IBC 2016,” the Bench remarked.

The Tribunal further noted that despite undertaking ten foreign trips between November 2024 and August 2025, Kakkad had “neither disclosed income to CoC, nor contributed to return funds,” and his declared income of Rs. 11.01 lakh in the previous financial year was entirely offset by expenses.

It also recorded that Kakkad had “negligible realisable assets” against the substantial admitted liabilities, and that the Committee of Creditors had unanimously opposed the travel request citing a high flight risk.

Distinguishing a coordinate Bench decision permitting travel on humanitarian grounds, the Tribunal noted that Kakkad had no family in the UAE and was seeking to travel solely for employment, which could be terminated at any time.

Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the application and directed that the bankruptcy proceedings continue expeditiously.

For Applicant: Senior Advocate Saurabh Soparkar with Advocate Mohit Gupta

For Respondents: Advocates Nipun Singhavi and Rahil Bhavasar for Samir Ganeshbhai; Advocate Nalini Lodha for Bank of Baroda