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) 719

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
N. Seshasayee, J
Mukesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
M/s Baba Shri Chand Alloys India (Proprietorship Concern) – Respondent
Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 1045 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Pulkit Goyal, Ramneet Kuar Mann
For the Respondents:

The threshold limit for initiating personal insolvency for individuals and partnership firms is governed by Section 78 of the IBC (minimum one thousand rupees), not by the threshold limits applicable to corporate persons under Section 4.

Headnote:The appellant filed a petition under Section 94 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, to commence personal insolvency regarding a guarantee value of Rs. 5 lakhs. The Adjudicating Authority dismissed the petition, erroneously applying the threshold limit prescribed under Section 4 of the IBC, which pertains to corporate persons, concluding that the amount was below the statutory threshold. The primary issue was whether the threshold limit for personal insolvency is governed by Section 4 or Section 78 of the IBC. The court observed that Section 4 falls under Part II, Chapter I dealing with corporate persons, whereas Section 78, which applies to individuals and partnership firms, specifies a default amount of not less than one thousand rupees. The impugned Order dated 17.04.2026 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority to consider the matter afresh in the light of Section 78 of the Code and its implications conjoined with other facts of the case.

Table of Content
1. dismissal of personal insolvency petition based on corporate threshold limits. (Para 1 , 4)
2. distinction between corporate insolvency thresholds (s.4) and individual insolvency thresholds (s.78). (Para 2 , 5)
3. setting aside of order and remand for fresh consideration under correct statutory provision. (Para 6)

O R D E R

(Hybrid Mode)

Per: Justice N. Seshasayee, Member (Judicial)

07.07.2026 :

The appellant herein has moved a petition under Section 94 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short the “IBC”) to commence personal insolvency on the ground that he was not in a position to perform his guarantee value of Rs.5 lakhs. This came to be dismissed by the Adjudicating Authority vide impugned Order dated 17.04.2026 essentially on the ground that since the amount is only Rs. 5 lakhs which is far below the threshold limit prescribed under Section 4 of the IBC.

2. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted Section 4 comes under Part II, Chapter I of the IBC and it deals with “Insolvency Resolution and Liquidation for Corporate Persons”. The provision of the facts of the case is Part III, Section 78 wherein the threshold limit is only one thousand rupees and above.

3. We perused the papers.

4. The Adjudicating Authority in its impugned Order has captured his line of vision in paragraph 16, which is to the following effect:

“16. In view of the foregoing discussion and the material placed on record, this Adjudicating Authority is of the considered opinion that the present Petition is not maintainable. The admitted default under the Deed of Guarantee is Rs. 5,00,000/ -, which is below the statutory threshold prescribed under Section 4 of the Code. The attempt of the Petitioner to include other unrelated liabilities for the purpose of meeting the threshold cannot be accepted in law. Accordingly, the present Petition does not satisfy the requirement of pecuniary jurisdiction under Section 94 of the Code.”

5. Section 78 reads as below:

“78. Application.
This Part shall apply to matters relating to fresh start, insolvency and bankruptcy of individuals and partnership firms where the amount of the default is not less than one thousand rupees:
Provided that the Central Government may, by notification, specify the minimum amount of default of higher value which shall not be more than one lakh rupees.”

6. In view of the same, we find merit in the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant. The impugned Order dated 17.04.2026 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority to consider the matter afresh in the light of Section 78 of the Code and its implications conjoined with other facts of the case.

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