SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(NCLAT) 273

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Ashok Bhushan, J
D.N.V. Srinivasa Raju – Appellant
Versus
IDBI Bank Ltd. – Respondent
CP (IB) No.404/(PB)/2024 | IA No.5502 of 2025 | IA No.7178 of 2025 | IA No.765 of 2026 | IA No.658 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Yashvardhan, Mr. Devesh Mohan, Mr. Gyanendra Shukla, Mr. Pranav Das, Mr. Rachit Lakhmani, Mr. Nipun Gautam, Mr. Swapan Das
For the Respondents: Mr. Sanjay Bajaj, Mr. Rajat Prakash, Ms. Richa Sandilya, Mr. Dev, Mr. Sanjay Vashistha, Mr. Sunil Kumar

Balance sheet entries acknowledging corporate guarantee liability, despite 'no validity' note, constitute Section 18 acknowledgment extending limitation for Section 7, combined with COVID extension; post-admission settlement requires Section 12A withdrawal application.

Headnote:(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Section 7 - Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 18 - Corporate guarantee invoked in 1994, recovery certificate issued in 2018 - Section 7 application filed in 2024 held within limitation due to fresh period commencing from recovery certificate date, extended by Supreme Court COVID orders (15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 excluded, balance period available from 01.03.2022 till 12.07.2023), and unqualified acknowledgments in audited balance sheets (FY 2019-20, 2020-21, 2021-22) noting counter guarantee provided, despite statements of 'no validity' - Such entries indicate subsisting liability and jural relationship of debtor-creditor, liberally construed per precedents - Letters accepting settlement offer in 2022 also constitute acknowledgment within extended limitation period. (Paras 10-27)

(B) IBC, 2016 - Section 12A - Post-admission settlement with financial creditor does not automatically terminate in rem CIRP proceedings - Financial creditor directed to file withdrawal application under Section 12A through IRP for Adjudicating Authority consideration, intervenors permitted to object. (Paras 29-33)

Facts of the case:
Suspended director of government-owned corporate debtor appealed NCLT order admitting financial creditor's Section 7 application on corporate guarantee debt, claiming time-bar; NCLT relied on recovery certificate, balance sheet acknowledgments, and settlement letters. During appeal, financial creditor accepted settlement offer; operational creditors intervened.

Findings of Court:
Impugned admission order upheld as within limitation; appeal withdrawn post-settlement; financial creditor to file Section 12A application within four weeks through IRP, who shall not proceed further till its decision; intervenors at liberty to object.

Issues: Whether Section 7 application barred by limitation despite recovery certificate, COVID extension, balance sheet entries, and settlement letters; effect of post-admission settlement on CIRP.

Ratio Decidendi: Balance sheet entries acknowledging counter guarantee constitute valid Section 18 acknowledgment if indicating subsisting liability, examined case-by-case with liberal construction; combined with COVID exclusion, extends limitation beyond filing date; Section 12A required for withdrawal post-admission.

Result: Appeal and applications disposed; admission upheld, withdrawal permitted subject to Section 12A process.

Table of Content
1. factual history of guarantee, default, and cirp initiation. (Para 1 , 2)
2. parties argue limitation bar versus acknowledgment extension. (Para 4 , 5)
3. settlement allows section 12a withdrawal post-admission. (Para 6 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33)
4. fresh limitation from drt recovery certificate, extended by covid orders. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
5. balance sheet notes acknowledge contingent guarantee liability. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
6. balance sheet entries constitute valid debt acknowledgment under section 18. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
7. settlement letters provide additional limitation acknowledgment. (Para 26 , 27)
8. section 7 application within limitation; nclt order upheld. (Para 28)

JUDGMENT

(25th February, 2026)

Ashok Bhushan, J.

This Appeal by a Suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor- M/s. HIL (India) Limited has been filed challenging the order dated 30.07.2025 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal) Principal Bench, New Delhi admitting Section 7 application filed by the IDBI Bank Limited, the Respondent No.1 herein.

2. Brief facts of the case necessary to be noticed for deciding the Appeal are:-

2.1. M/s. HIL (India) Limited (Hindustan Insecticides Limited) is a Government of India enterprises having 100% shareholding with the President of India under the Department of Chemicals & Petrochemicals, Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers, Government of India. The Corporate Debtor was incorporate in March 1954. Southern Pesticides Corporation Limited (SPCL) is a subsidiary Company of the Corporate Debtor. IDBI has approved a term loan amounting to Rs.280 Lakhs for SPCL in the year 1983. SPCL availed a foreign currency loan facility of Rs.40 Lakh and entered into second loan agreement. There were third loan agreement entered with IDBI and SPCL to secure the repayment of loan amount of IDBI. M/s. HIL (India) Limited executed a Deed of Guarantee dated 21.11.1988 undertaking the repayment of loan taken by SPCL. On account of default by SPCL, the loan account was classified as NPA. The IDBI invoked the guarantee vide letter dated 01.07.1994. Pursuant to default committed by principal borrower and the M/s. HIL (India) Limited, IDBI Bank filed an OA No.253 of 2002 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal for recovery of amount of Rs.19,32,20,414/-. The DRT allowed the OA and passed a decree and issued a Recovery Certificate dated 26.07.2018. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh passed an order of winding up with regard to principal borrower- SPCL on 01.04.2002. In the balance sheet of Corporate Debtor for F.Y. 2020-2021 the corporate guarantee in respect of SPCL in favour of IDBI Bank was mentioned. The IDBI Bank issued a letter dated 30.12.2020 to the Managing Director of HIL offering for settlement to guarantor under the Saral Karj Bhugtan Yojana-II (SKBY-II): 2020-2021. The letter dated 30.12.2020 was not replied by the Corporate Debtor, however, Corporate Debtor wrote subsequent letters on 18.04.2022 and 02.06.2022 to the IDBI Bank informing that as per settlement offer an amount of Rs.30,90,143/- can be paid up to 31.03.2021. The Financial Creditor filed an application under Section 7 on 13.06.2024 before the NCLT claiming total amount of default as Rs.8,56,51,126/- with interest from 25.12.2003 till date of recovery. Part IV also mentioned that as per the Recovery Certificate by DRT dated 26.07.2018 dues as on 07.06.2024 are Rs.29,60,00,905/-. The notice was issued by the Adjudicating Authority to the Corporate Debtor. Corporate Debtor appeared and filed its reply objecting to Section 7 application. Corporate Debtor pleaded that the application is barred by time. Adjudicating Authority heard both the parties and by impugned order dated 30.07.2025 admitted Section 7 application. Adjudicating Authority held that the Financial Creditor shall have fresh period of limitation from date of the decree by the DRT dated 26.07.2018 and there was acknowledgment in the balance she

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top