KAYMAN Records Management is an ISO 9001:2015 Certified Records Management Company
Documenting Peace of Mind
Benefits Of storing Files in
KAYMAN Records Storage Facility
Door Step Pickup & Delivery of Files
Scientific Indexing of Records
Quick Retrieval of Documents
Secure Scanning & Digitization
KAYMAN is one of the leading Records Management Companies in Chennai that offer holistic records management services.
The cost of storing records depends on the following factors.
KAYMAN is one of the few Document Storage Companies in Chennai that caters to multiple industry clients for various records management services.
We rely on KAYMAN records management for our records storage. They are professionals in the information management discipline.
CFO
Leading Packaging Company
Our huge pile of records is efficiently scanned and digitized with Kayman Records Digitization Services. Helps us very much to maintain clean offices.
General Manager
Leading Logistics Company
KAYMAN helps us with Medical Records Storage. Medical documents storage is critical for meeting compliance. We digitize our medical files as well.
CFO
Leading Healthcare Company
Monthly Basis - Your files are stored in standard sized Records Management boxes and the charges are based on the count of boxes that are stored.
A Records Management box can hold 4-5 Box files or 25 - 30 Flat files (File size does matter)
We provide Doorstep Pickup & Delivery of Files
No Security deposits. No Hidden charges. - Pay for what you use
Store, safe and securely at 1/3 of the cost of renting a Flat or an Apartment
The NCLT noted that a personal guarantor means an individual who is a surety to a corporate debtor in a contract of guarantee with that corporate debtor. Through a common judgment delivered on Tuesday, the Jaipur Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) clarified the ambit of Non-Banking Finance Companies (NBFCs) as corporate debtors and the initiation of insolvency proceedings against personal guarantors of such financial service providers under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) [Shapoorji Pallonji Finance Private Limited v. Rekha Singh]. The NCLT had to consider whether a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) could be initiated by a financial creditor under Section 95 of the Code against any personal guarantor of M/s Jumbo Finvest (India) Limited, which is an NBFC and a financial service provider (FSP), particularly in the absence of any CIRP against the NBFC. The order stated that under ordinary circumstances, FSPs were not included in the definition of corporate person under Section 3(7) of the Code, except such categories of FSPs as demarcated under the FSP Threshold Notification dated November 18, 2019, which notified the categories of FSPs, as per Rule 2 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (lnsolvency and Liquidation Proceedings of Financial Service Providers and Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules, to which the FSP Rules would be applicable. The FSP Threshold Notification stated that insolvency resolution and liquidation proceedings could be undertaken only for NBFCs that have an asset size of â¹500 crore or more. In the present case, it was found that the total asset size of Jumbo Finvest (India) Limited is less than â¹500 crores. Therefore, the NCLT held that Jumbo Finvest would be excluded from the ambit of the FSP Threshold Notification. As such, it was held that Jumbo Finvest, which was the principal borrower, would not strictly fall within the scope of a corporate person under the Code, and therefore, would not qualify as a corporate debtor. The NCLT noted that a personal guarantor means an individual who is a surety to a corporate debtor in a contract of guarantee with the latter. It held that in order for an individual to be a personal guarantor, the individual has to be a surety, there has to be a contract of guarantee and the individual has to be guarantor to a corporate debtor. The Tribunal further held that the definition of personal guarantors under Section 5(22) of the Code expresses that they can be recognised as such, only if the person or entity for whom they have given guarantee is a corporate debtor. Therefore, as it was held that that Jumbo Finvest was not a corporate debtor, the NCLT accordingly stated that the guarantors of the aforesaid company cannot be considered as personal guarantors under the provisions of the Code. The order also noted that the consequences of CIRP are dire and almost penal, therefore, definitions must be strictly construed. As a result, the Tribunal dismissed the applications seeking initiation of insolvency against the personal guarantors of Jumbo Finvest. Read More: https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/guarantors-company-not-corporate-debtor-not-personal-guarantors-ibc-nclt-jaipur