##PAGE1##

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 2264 of 2024 (Arising out of Impugned Order dated 30.10.2024 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench in CP NO. IB-21/KB/2024)

IN THE MATTER OF:

RENU LALIT AGARWAL Suspended Director of AS Infracon Pvt. Ltd.

Having Address At: Flat No. E/412, 4th Floor, E Tower, Shripal Residency, City Light Road, Appellant Surat - 345 007 VERSUS SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT BANK OF INDIA Having its headquarters at SIDBI Tower, Respondent No.1

15, Ashok Marg, Lucknow - 226001, Uttar Pradesh MR. AJIT GYANCHAND JAIN Interim Resolution Professional of AS Infracon Pvt. Ltd.

Having address at: 204, Wall Street-I, Ellisbridge, Respondent No.2 Near Gujarat College, Ahmadabad, Gujarat 380006 PRESENT For Appellant Mr. Arpit Singhvi, Advocate For Respondents Mr. Amit Dayal, Advocate for R-1 Ms. Nikita Gupta, Ms. Yashna Ahuja, Mr. Vaibhav Kumar, Mr. Milind Garg & Mr. Yaksh Garg, Advocates for R-2

J U D G E M E N T

(21.08.2026)

NARESH SALECHA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

1. The present appeal is filed by the Appellant i.e., Renu Lalit Agarwal, who is the Suspended Director of AS Infracon Private Limited under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, (“Code”) arising out of Impugned Order dated 30.10.2024 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench (“Adjudicating Authority”) in CP No. IB 21/KB/2024.

Small Industries Development Bank of India is the Respondent No.1 herein.

Mr. Ajit Gyanchand Jain, who is the Interim Resolution Professional of AS Infracon Pvt. Ltd. is the Respondent No.2 herein.

2. The Appellant submitted that the Appellant is the suspended Director of AS Infracon Pvt. Ltd. ("Corporate Debtor"), which was incorporated on 17.08.1998. The Appellant stated that no business activities have been carried on from the registered office of the Corporate Debtor for more than five years, a fact that was well within the knowledge of Respondent No. 1. The Appellant contended that despite such knowledge, Respondent No. 1 deliberately failed to effect proper service of notices and proceeded against the Corporate Debtor in violation of the principles of natural justice.

3. The Appellant submitted that Respondent No. 1 had sanctioned financial assistance of Rs. 7,00,00,000/- under a Secured Business Loan to MSMEs in favour of Kosas Exports Ltd. vide Sanction Letter dated 24.02.2014 for meeting various business requirements, including capital expenditure, servicing new orders, renovation of assets, reimbursement of self-financed assets, funding of intangibles, brand building, research and development, inorganic business growth, and other bona fide business needs. The Appellant stated that a Loan Agreement dated 26.02.2014 was executed between Respondent No. 1 and Kosas Exports Ltd. for availing the said financial assistance, and on the same date the Corporate Debtor executed an unconditional and irrevocable Deed of Guarantee securing the loan advanced to the Borrower.

4. The Appellant contended that although Respondent No. 1 disbursed the entire loan amount of Rs. 7 Crores to the Borrower and subsequently classified the loan account as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) with effect from 08.11.2015, followed by issuance of a recall notice dated 08.03.2016, the alleged invocation of the Corporate Debtor's guarantee vide notice dated 27.07.2016 was never served upon the Corporate Debtor. The Appellant submitted that the Corporate Debtor had never received the alleged notice invoking the guarantee demanding payment of Rs. 7,28,75,463/- together with further interest. The Appellant stated that Respondent No. 1 has failed to establish valid service of the said notice and is put to strict proof thereof. Consequently, the Appellant contended that the initiation of proceedings under Section 7 of the Code, is barred by limitation since the alleged invocation notice, forming the very basis of the claim against the Corporate Deb