NCLT Mumbai Issues Bailable Warrant Against Personal Guarantor For Failing To Appear Despite Repeated Directions

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai Bench, has recently issued a bailable warrant of arrest against a personal guarantor for failing to appear before the tribunal despite clear directions to explain why the Resolution Professional's fees had not been paid.

The order was passed by Judicial Member Sushil Mahadeorao Kochey and Technical Member Prabhat Kumar in personal insolvency proceedings against Mahananda Udhavrao Deshkhaire under Section 94(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

The provision allows a debtor who has committed a default to apply for initiation of a personal insolvency resolution process.

In the case of a personal guarantor to a corporate debtor, such proceedings form part of the insolvency framework applicable to personal guarantors. The IBBI's framework specifically provides for applications under Section 94 in such cases.

The tribunal had admitted the petition and initiated the insolvency resolution process against the personal guarantor on October 13, 2025. On June 15, 2026, it directed her to appear in person and explain why the Resolution Professional's fees had not been paid. The Resolution Professional was also directed to serve a copy of the order on her.

The matter was listed again on July 9. Counsel for the Resolution Professional informed the tribunal that a postal notice sent on July 2 was still in transit. The tribunal accordingly granted three weeks' time as sought by the applicant.

When the matter came up on August 3, counsel for the Resolution Professional informed the tribunal that the notice sent on July 2 had been duly served on the personal guarantor. However, she did not appear and there was no representation on her behalf.

The tribunal observed that despite its “clear and categorical directions”, the personal guarantor had not complied with the order and had failed to explain why the Resolution Professional's fees remained unpaid.

It further observed that her defiance of the June 15 order directing her to remain present was “apparent on the face and writ large” and held that it was appropriate to issue a bailable warrant against her.

The tribunal relied on a judgment of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1018 of 2021 while considering whether a warrant could be issued for her non-appearance.

It noted that Rule 77 of the NCLT Rules makes the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure applicable to summoning and enforcing the attendance of persons.

The tribunal then referred to Order XVI Rule 10 CPC, which empowers a court to issue a warrant, with or without bail, against a person who, without lawful excuse, fails to attend or produce documents in compliance with a summons.

In this case, the tribunal noted that the personal guarantor had been directed to remain present and answer its queries but had failed to appear despite “clear and categorical directions”.

“Having considered the submissions and upon perusal of the judgment cited (supra), this Bench has left with no other option except to issue Bailable warrant against the Petitioner/Personal Guarantor herein,” the tribunal observed.

The tribunal directed the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner of Police or Deputy Superintendent of Police to personally ensure execution of the warrant. The Resolution Professional's counsel was also directed to serve a copy of the order and the bailable warrant on the jurisdictional police authorities.

The warrant is for ₹5,000 and directs that the personal guarantor be produced before the tribunal on September 23, 2026 at 10:30 AM.

It further provides that she may be released if she furnishes a bail bond of ₹5,000, with or without sureties, and undertakes to appear on September 23 and continue attending the proceedings until further directions.