ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. L.Ravichander, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr. Mayur Mundra, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. K.Raghavendra Rao, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and Mr. P.Vajra Lakshmi Subba Rao, learned counsel for respondent No. 3.

2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioner has assailed legality and validity of the order dated 30.03.2021 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench-I, Hyderabad (for short, ‘NCLT’ hereinafter).

3. By the aforesaid order, NCLT dismissed the interlocutory application filed by the petitioner under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (briefly, ‘IBC’ hereinafter) read with Rule 17 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016 as well as under Section 420 of the Companies Act, 2013 seeking dismissal of the application filed under Section 7 of the IBC being C.P. (IB) No. 681/7/HDB/2018 as being barred by limitation and thereafter to declare all further proceedings based on the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process as infructuous.

4. Petitioner is a suspended director of a company called M/s.Guruprabha Power Limited (referred to hereinafter as ‘corporate debtor’). Corporate debtor is a limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Hyderabad. Corporate debtor was established with the prime object of generating 10 MW bio-mass power at Jalgaon in the State of Maharashtra.

5. In the course of its business, corporate debtor had approached respondent No. 2 i.e., Punjab National Bank for availing financial assistance. Accordingly, respondent No. 2 extended financial assistance to the corporate debtor in the form of Rupee Term Loan-I facility to the extent of Rs.28,88,40,000-00. Thereafter, second Rupee Term Loan-II was sanctioned by respondent No. 2 to the tune of Rs.4,35,30,000-00 along with cash credit limit of Rs.6,50,00,000-00 towards working capital limit of the corporate debtor.

6. For various reasons, corporate debtor faced financial crunch which ultimately resulted in non-payment of instalments to respondent No. 2.

7. Respondent No. 2 declared the loan account of the corporate debtor as a non-performing asset (NPA) on 31.05.2007.

8. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 issued notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest Act, 2002 (briefly, ‘the SARFAESI Act’ hereinafter) on 27.06.2011. This was followed by issuance of possession notice dated 15.09.2011 under Rule 8(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 against the secured assets mortgaged by the corporate debtor as security while availing the financial assistance.

9. Assailing the action of respondent No. 2, corporate debtor approached the competent Debts Recovery Tribunal at Hyderabad (DRT) by filing securitisation application No. 259 of 2011. On orders of the DRT, corporate debtor deposited a sum of Rs.1.27 crores with respondent No. 2 to enable re-scheduling of the loan. On 19.03.2012, proposal for re-scheduling the loan was considered and letter to that effect was issued. However, according to the petitioner, letter of re-scheduling of the loan was nothing but an eye wash as respondent No. 2 had increased the rate of interest besides refusing to provide the facility of working capital.

10. In addition to the remedy under the SARFAESI Act, respondent No. 2 also invoked the provisions of Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 by filing O.A.No. 1316 of 2016 before DRT for issuance of recovery certificate.

11. Thus, respondent No. 2 had already invoked remedies under both the SARFAESI Act as well as under the Recovery of Debts due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993.

12. Upon promulgation of IBC in the year 2016 and on establishment of NCLT, respondent No. 2 filed an application under Section 7 of IBC before NCLT in the year 2018 seeking initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolutio