{"id":389491,"date":"2026-07-06T12:00:02","date_gmt":"2026-07-06T06:30:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=389491"},"modified":"2026-07-06T12:18:22","modified_gmt":"2026-07-06T06:48:22","slug":"nclat-chennai-rp-report-under-section-99-ibc-not-mandatory-where-guarantor-status-admitted","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/06\/nclat-chennai-rp-report-under-section-99-ibc-not-mandatory-where-guarantor-status-admitted\/","title":{"rendered":"Section 99 IBC Resolution Professional\u2019s report not mandatory where guarantor status admitted: NCLAT Chennai upholds Section 95 IBC application"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Chennai:<\/span> The present Company Appeal was filed by Dr. Badri Prasad (Appellant), a personal guarantor of M\/s. Furnace Fabrica (India) Ltd. (Corporate Debtor), against Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. (Financial Creditor) and the Resolution Professional, challenging the order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) admitting an application under Section 95<\/a> Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016<\/a> (IBC) against him. The Bench of Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma (Judicial Member)<\/span> and Jatindranath Swain (Technical Member)<\/span>, dismissed the appeal, holding that the Appellant, having admitted his signature on the loan sanction letter and letter of guarantee describing him as a personal guarantor, could not resile from that liability. It further held that the absence of a report by the Resolution Professional under Section 99 IBC did not vitiate the admission of the application.<\/p>\n

Background:<\/p>\n

The Appellant claimed to be the promoter and director of the Corporate Debtor, which was incorporated in 1985 and was engaged in the fabrication and manufacture of structural metal products. In 2019, the Corporate Debtor applied to the Financial Creditor for a term loan and working capital facility of Rs. 39.60 crore, which was sanctioned vide letter dated13 May 2019. The Appellant was a signatory to the sanction letter and was described as a personal guarantor along with others, while M\/s. City Hospital (P) Ltd. furnished a corporate guarantee. A loan agreement dated 13 May 2019 was executed, and Clause 8 bound the guarantors to discharge the Corporate Debtor’s liabilities in case of default. A separate letter of guarantee of the same date was also executed, which was again signed by the Appellant as Guarantor.<\/p>\n

The Appellant contended that, under a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 1 March 2014, he had been completely ousted from all executive roles in the Corporate Debtor and that his authority to operate its bank accounts had been withdrawn by a Board resolution. Therefore, he could not be held liable for a loan that had been sanctioned in 2019 after his ouster.<\/p>\n

Upon default by the Corporate Debtor, its account was declared a Non-Performing Asset on 16 December 2022. A demand notice dated 19 December 2022 and a loan recall notice dated 10 January 2023 were thereafter issued to the personal and corporate guarantors. A notice under Section 95(4)(b) IBC was issued on 16 February 2023 demanding Rs. 18,95,48,246.53 with interest and costs. The Financial Creditor thereafter filed a Company Petition under Section 95 IBC, which was admitted by the NCLT by order dated 14-8-2024, giving rise to the present appeal.<\/p>\n

The Appellant further referred upon a Commercial Suit filed before the Bombay High Court on 10 November 2023, a complaint filed with the Registrar of Companies (RoC) on 18 July 2023 regarding the non-implementation of the MoU, and Company Petition under Sections 241<\/a> and 242<\/a> Companies Act, 2013<\/a>. All these proceedings had been initiated after the filing of Company Petition under Section 95 IBC before NCLT and issuance of notice under Section 95(4)(b) IBC.<\/p>\n

Issues<\/p>\n

1. Whether the admission of the application under Section 95 IBC without a prior report of the Resolution Professional under Section 99 IBC vitiated the proceedings.<\/p>\n

2. Whether the Appellant, having admittedly signed the loan sanction letter and letter of guarantee, could resile from personal guarantor liability on the ground of subsequent ouster from management under the MoU or on the ground that the documents were executed under duress.<\/p>\n

3. Whether the pendency of the Commercial Suit, the RoC complaint, and the Company Petition under Sections 241<\/a> and 242<\/a> Companies Act, 2013<\/a> barred the continuation of the proceedings under Section 95 IBC.<\/p>\n

Analysis, Law, and Decision:<\/p>\n

The Tribunal held that under Section 99 IBC, Resolution Professional Report was only recommendatory in nature and was meant to assist the Adjudicating Authority in deciding whether to admit or reject an application under Section 95 IBC. Further held that the personal guarantor had no role to play up to the stage of Section 100 IBC. Since the declaration of the account as a Non-Performing Asset and the Appellant’s own admission of his status as guarantor independently established the debt and default, the absence of the Resolution Professional Report did not vitiate the admission order.<\/p>\n

The Tribunal observed that admission of a signature amounted to admission of the document and the liabilities arising from it. Further noted that the Appellant had admittedly signed the sanction letter dated 13 May 2019, which described him as a guarantor, the loan agreement containing Clause 8 binding the guarantors, and the letter of guarantee as Guarantor No. 1.<\/p>\n

Further the tribunal held that the plea of ouster from management under the MoU was irrelevant to the liability voluntarily assumed in 2019. The Tribunal rejected the plea of duress, which had been raised for the first time at the appellate stage in respect of documents executed in 2019, as an articulated realisation that ought to have been raised within a reasonable time of execution. The Tribunal also held that the guarantee was enforceable even without a separate deed of guarantee, as long as the intention to create a binding obligation was evident from the documents on record.<\/p>\n

The Tribunal noted that the Commercial Suit, the RoC complaint, and the Company Petition under Sections 241<\/a> and 242<\/a> Companies Act, 2013<\/a> had all been instituted after the filing of the application under Section 95 IBC and after issuance of the notice under Section 95(4)(b) IBC, despite the underlying MoU having dated back to 2014. It held that these proceedings, having been initiated long after the cause of action for them had arisen, were an afterthought and could not be permitted to stall the proceedings under Section 95 IBC.<\/p>\n

The Tribunal further held that a ground which had neither been pleaded nor argued before the NCLT, such as the effect of the absence of a report under Section 99 IBC, involved a mixed question of fact and law and could not be raised for the first time before the Appellate Tribunal. Holding that debt, default, and the Appellant’s status as guarantor had been established. The NCLT found no error in the admission of the application under Section 95 IBC. Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and closed all pending interlocutory applications.<\/p>\n

[Dr. Badri Prasad v. Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd., Company Appeal (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 401\/2024, decided on 25-6-2026<\/span>]<\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case :<\/p>\n

For Appellant:<\/span> Ujjwal Jain, Advocate<\/p>\n

For Respondent:<\/span> Chandapillai, Advocate for Respondent 1<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“…the provisions of Section 99<\/a> of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016<\/a>, are procedural and are only for the purposes of recommending for approval or rejection of the application, where the recommendation would have to be based upon the facts and evidence presented to the Resolution Professional or collected by him under the powers conferred upon him to call for records and evidence.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":389494,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,11],"tags":[109036,109040,109038,109031,96511,55781,109035,109041,88089,41120,45951,109037,109034,109033,87369,109032,109039],"class_list":["post-389491","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-tribunals_commissions_regulatorybodies","tag-corporate-debtor-default","tag-duress-plea","tag-furnace-fabrica-india","tag-jatindranath-swain","tag-justice-sharad-kumar-sharma","tag-letter-of-guarantee","tag-loan-sanction-letter","tag-mou-ouster-from-management","tag-nclat-chennai","tag-npa","tag-personal-guarantor","tag-personal-insolvency-resolution-process","tag-resolution-professional-report","tag-section-100-ibc","tag-section-95-ibc","tag-section-99-ibc","tag-tata-capital-financial-services"],"yoast_head":"\nNCLAT Chennai: RP report under Section 99 IBC not mandatory where guarantor status admitted | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"NCLAT Chennai upheld admission of Section 95 IBC application against personal guarantor, absence of RP\u2019s report under Section 99 did not vitiate proceedings where debt, default and guarantee were admitted.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/06\/nclat-chennai-rp-report-under-section-99-ibc-not-mandatory-where-guarantor-status-admitted\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Section 99 IBC Resolution Professional\u2019s report not mandatory where guarantor status admitted: NCLAT Chennai upholds Section 95 IBC application\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"NCLAT Chennai upheld admission of Section 95 IBC application against personal guarantor, absence of RP\u2019s report under Section 99 did not vitiate proceedings where debt, default and guarantee were admitted.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/06\/nclat-chennai-rp-report-under-section-99-ibc-not-mandatory-where-guarantor-status-admitted\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-07-06T06:30:02+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-07-06T06:48:22+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Section-99-IBC-Resolution-Professionals-report.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Section 99 IBC Resolution Professional\u2019s report not mandatory where guarantor status admitted: NCLAT Chennai upholds Section 95 IBC application\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/06\\\/nclat-chennai-rp-report-under-section-99-ibc-not-mandatory-where-guarantor-status-admitted\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/06\\\/nclat-chennai-rp-report-under-section-99-ibc-not-mandatory-where-guarantor-status-admitted\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Editor\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"headline\":\"Section 99 IBC Resolution Professional\u2019s report not mandatory where guarantor status admitted: NCLAT Chennai upholds Section 95 IBC application\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-06T06:30:02+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-06T06:48:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/06\\\/nclat-chennai-rp-report-under-section-99-ibc-not-mandatory-where-guarantor-status-admitted\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1039,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/06\\\/nclat-chennai-rp-report-under-section-99-ibc-not-mandatory-where-guarantor-status-admitted\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/Section-99-IBC-Resolution-Professionals-report.webp\",\"keywords\":[\"corporate debtor default\",\"duress plea\",\"Furnace Fabrica India\",\"Jatindranath Swain\",\"Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma\",\"letter of guarantee\",\"loan sanction letter\",\"MoU ouster from management\",\"NCLAT Chennai\",\"NPA\",\"Personal Guarantor\",\"personal insolvency resolution process\",\"resolution professional report\",\"Section 100 IBC\",\"Section 95 IBC\",\"Section 99 IBC\",\"Tata Capital Financial Services\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Case Briefs\",\"Tribunals\\\/Commissions\\\/Regulatory Bodies\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/06\\\/nclat-chennai-rp-report-under-section-99-ibc-not-mandatory-where-guarantor-status-admitted\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/06\\\/nclat-chennai-rp-report-under-section-99-ibc-not-mandatory-where-guarantor-status-admitted\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/06\\\/nclat-chennai-rp-report-under-section-99-ibc-not-mandatory-where-guarantor-status-admitted\\\/\",\"name\":\"NCLAT Chennai: RP report under Section 99 IBC not mandatory where guarantor status admitted | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/06\\\/nclat-chennai-rp-report-under-section-99-ibc-not-mandatory-where-guarantor-status-admitted\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/06\\\/nclat-chennai-rp-report-under-section-99-ibc-not-mandatory-where-guarantor-status-admitted\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/Section-99-IBC-Resolution-Professionals-report.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-06T06:30:02+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-07-06T06:48:22+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"NCLAT Chennai upheld admission of Section 95 IBC application against personal guarantor, absence of RP\u2019s report under Section 99 did not vitiate proceedings where debt, default and guarantee were admitted.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/06\\\/nclat-chennai-rp-report-under-section-99-ibc-not-mandatory-where-guarantor-status-admitted\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/06\\\/nclat-chennai-rp-report-under-section-99-ibc-not-mandatory-where-guarantor-status-admitted\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/06\\\/nclat-chennai-rp-report-under-section-99-ibc-not-mandatory-where-guarantor-status-admitted\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/Section-99-IBC-Resolution-Professionals-report.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/Section-99-IBC-Resolution-Professionals-report.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Section 99 IBC Resolution Professional\u2019s report\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/06\\\/nclat-chennai-rp-report-under-section-99-ibc-not-mandatory-where-guarantor-status-admitted\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Section 99 IBC Resolution Professional\u2019s report not mandatory where guarantor status admitted: NCLAT Chennai upholds Section 95 IBC application\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/author\\\/editor_4\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"NCLAT Chennai: RP report under Section 99 IBC not mandatory where guarantor status admitted | SCC Times","description":"NCLAT Chennai upheld admission of Section 95 IBC application against personal guarantor, absence of RP\u2019s report under Section 99 did not vitiate proceedings where debt, default and guarantee were admitted.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/06\/nclat-chennai-rp-report-under-section-99-ibc-not-mandatory-where-guarantor-status-admitted\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Section 99 IBC Resolution Professional\u2019s report not mandatory where guarantor status admitted: NCLAT Chennai upholds Section 95 IBC application","og_description":"NCLAT Chennai upheld admission of Section 95 IBC application against personal guarantor, absence of RP\u2019s report under Section 99 did not vitiate proceedings where debt, default and guarantee were admitted.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/06\/nclat-chennai-rp-report-under-section-99-ibc-not-mandatory-where-guarantor-status-admitted\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2026-07-06T06:30:02+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-07-06T06:48:22+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Section-99-IBC-Resolution-Professionals-report.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Section 99 IBC Resolution Professional\u2019s report not mandatory where guarantor status admitted: NCLAT Chennai upholds Section 95 IBC application","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/06\/nclat-chennai-rp-report-under-section-99-ibc-not-mandatory-where-guarantor-status-admitted\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/06\/nclat-chennai-rp-report-under-section-99-ibc-not-mandatory-where-guarantor-status-admitted\/"},"author":{"name":"Editor","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"headline":"Section 99 IBC Resolution Professional\u2019s report not mandatory where guarantor status admitted: NCLAT Chennai upholds Section 95 IBC application","datePublished":"2026-07-06T06:30:02+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-06T06:48:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/06\/nclat-chennai-rp-report-under-section-99-ibc-not-mandatory-where-guarantor-status-admitted\/"},"wordCount":1039,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/06\/nclat-chennai-rp-report-under-section-99-ibc-not-mandatory-where-guarantor-status-admitted\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Section-99-IBC-Resolution-Professionals-report.webp","keywords":["corporate debtor default","duress plea","Furnace Fabrica India","Jatindranath Swain","Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma","letter of guarantee","loan sanction letter","MoU ouster from management","NCLAT Chennai","NPA","Personal Guarantor","personal insolvency resolution process","resolution professional report","Section 100 IBC","Section 95 IBC","Section 99 IBC","Tata Capital Financial Services"],"articleSection":["Case Briefs","Tribunals\/Commissions\/Regulatory Bodies"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/06\/nclat-chennai-rp-report-under-section-99-ibc-not-mandatory-where-guarantor-status-admitted\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/06\/nclat-chennai-rp-report-under-section-99-ibc-not-mandatory-where-guarantor-status-admitted\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/06\/nclat-chennai-rp-report-under-section-99-ibc-not-mandatory-where-guarantor-status-admitted\/","name":"NCLAT Chennai: RP report under Section 99 IBC not mandatory where guarantor status admitted | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/06\/nclat-chennai-rp-report-under-section-99-ibc-not-mandatory-where-guarantor-status-admitted\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/06\/nclat-chennai-rp-report-under-section-99-ibc-not-mandatory-where-guarantor-status-admitted\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Section-99-IBC-Resolution-Professionals-report.webp","datePublished":"2026-07-06T06:30:02+00:00","dateModified":"2026-07-06T06:48:22+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"NCLAT Chennai upheld admission of Section 95 IBC application against personal guarantor, absence of RP\u2019s report under Section 99 did not vitiate proceedings where debt, default and guarantee were admitted.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/06\/nclat-chennai-rp-report-under-section-99-ibc-not-mandatory-where-guarantor-status-admitted\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/06\/nclat-chennai-rp-report-under-section-99-ibc-not-mandatory-where-guarantor-status-admitted\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/06\/nclat-chennai-rp-report-under-section-99-ibc-not-mandatory-where-guarantor-status-admitted\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Section-99-IBC-Resolution-Professionals-report.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Section-99-IBC-Resolution-Professionals-report.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Section 99 IBC Resolution Professional\u2019s report"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/07\/06\/nclat-chennai-rp-report-under-section-99-ibc-not-mandatory-where-guarantor-status-admitted\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Section 99 IBC Resolution Professional\u2019s report not mandatory where guarantor status admitted: NCLAT Chennai upholds Section 95 IBC application"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Section-99-IBC-Resolution-Professionals-report.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/389491","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=389491"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/389491\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":389493,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/389491\/revisions\/389493"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/389494"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=389491"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=389491"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=389491"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}