IN

C.P. (IB) NO.253/KB/2024

An Application under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Code, 2016

IN THE MATTER OF:

Uco Bank

….. Petitioner

Versus

Gouri Shankar Jain & Ors.

….. Respondents

Date of Pronouncement: 15^th of December, 2025

CORAM:

SMT. BIDISHA BANERJEE, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

CMDE SIDDHARTH MISHRA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

APPEARANCE:

Ms. Ankita Baid, Adv. ] For Personal Guarantor

Mr. Rahul Sarkar, Adv. ] For Financial Creditor

Mr. Siddhant Srivastava, Adv.

IN C.P. (IB) NO.253/KB/2024

ORDER

Per: Bidisha Banerjee, Member (Judicial):

1. The Court convened in hybrid mode.

2. Heard the Ld. Counsel for the Personal Guarantor.

3. At hearing today Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Personal Guarantor submitted that the application should be dismissed as the same is barred by limitation, in support, he would furnish the list of dates which are reproduced herein below:

Date Particulars Page Page No.

No. in in the CP Report

29.12.2008 Common Loan Agreement entered 52 into between CD and the consortium of Banks consisting of Punjab National Bank, Indian Overseas Bank and Financial Creditor Working Capital Consortium 92 agreement entered into between CD and the consortium Joint deed of Hypothecation created 148 by the Borrower i.e. the CD in favour of the consortium Deed of guarantee executed by 18 Swarnganga Gold Traders Pvt. Ltd.

Deed of Guarantee executed by 45 Personal Guarantor being Gourishankar Jain i.e. the Respondent, Anil Jain, Sunil Jain and Renu Jain IN C.P. (IB) NO.253/KB/2024

4. It was submitted that since the Loan Agreement was of 2008, Deed of Guarantee was of 2008, the Default was of 2013, Form – B IN C.P. (IB) NO.253/KB/2024 Demand Notice sent by Financial Creditor to the Personal Guarantor on 18.03.2024 claiming the same as invocation of guarantee cannot save the limitation due to the following reasons:

i. There is no prior invocation of guarantee before issuance of Form – B Demand Notice;

ii. Notice under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act is on 2013, it does not amount to an invocation in view of the law laid recently;

iii. A Demand Notice in Form – B sent under Rule 7 of the IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process of Personal Guarantors) Regulations can also not be treated as notice invoking guarantee as held by Hon’ble NCLAT, New Delhi in State Bank of India vs. Deepak Kumar Singhania [Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency)

No.191 of 2025] [Paragraphs 7, 17, 20, 25, 26 & 27];

iv. The DRT being moved in 2013 and the guarantee having been invoked then by calling upon the guarantors to pay the amount dues from the Personal Borrowers, the limitation would expire three years from the date of such invocation and accordingly the present petition in 2025 is barred under laws of limitation.

5. We have noted the following statutory/regulatory definitions, provisions and decisions carefully and understood the implications thereof.

A. Personal Guarantor:

Regulation 3(1)(e) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority for Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtors) Rules, 2019, defines “Guarantor” as follows:

IN C.P. (IB) NO.253/KB/2024 “3(1)(e). “Guarantor” means a debtor who is a personal guarantor to a Corporate Debtor and in respect of whom guarantee has been invoked by the creditor and remains unpaid in full or part.”

Thus, it is explicit that a Debtor who is a Personal Guarantor to a Corporate Debtor can be termed as a Guarantor in respect of whom guarantee has been invoked by the Creditor and remains unpaid in full of part.

B. Liability of a Personal Guarantor:

a. In Syndicate Bank vs. Channaveerappa Beleri & Ors, it was held that “A guarantor’s liability depends on terms of his contract”

XXX XXX XXX “A claim may even be time-barred against the principal debtor, but still enforceable against the guarantor” and “The extent of liability under a guarantee as also the question as to when the liability of a guarantor will arise, would depend purely on the terms of the contract”.

(Emphasis added)

b. Similarly,