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)(NCLT) 1343

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
SANJIV JAIN, Judicial Member, VENKATARAMAN SUBRAMANIAM, Technical Member
Shoukath Sherif – Appellant
Versus
Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd. – Respondent
CP(IB)/151(CHE)/2025|IA(IBC)/1034(CHE)/2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Aalok Jagga, Abitha Banu, B. Mekala
For the Respondents: V.V. Sivakumar, Chetan Sagar, Abitha Banu, Chethan Sagar

Section 94 IBC petition by personal guarantor dismissed as time-barred and misuse to stall advanced SARFAESI auction after long delay post-possession, emphasizing strict limitation and protection of recovery sanctity.

Headnote:(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Sections 94(1), 99, 96, 60(1), 105 - SARFAESI Act, 2002 - Sections 13(2), 14 - Section 94 petition by personal guarantor filed after secured creditor took physical possession of mortgaged properties and issued auction notice - Petition held barred by limitation as filed beyond three years from date of default/guarantee invocation even excluding COVID extension period (Para 16) - Petition filed to frustrate advanced-stage auction process under SARFAESI after remaining silent for over three years post-possession, constituting misuse of IBC provisions to stall recovery (Paras 15, 17, 19, 22, 23).

(B) Limitation - Applies strictly to IBC proceedings including Section 94 petitions - Three-year period reckoned from demand notice date; no extension claimed or justified (Para 16).

(C) Jurisdiction - Admissibility of Section 94 not barred merely by prior SARFAESI initiation, but significant delay and intent to evade auction distinguished from prompt filings (Paras 17, 23).

(D) SARFAESI Act - Right of redemption extinguished upon publication of auction notice where borrower fails to tender dues beforehand; courts to protect auction sanctity (Paras 20, 22).

Facts of the case:
Personal guarantor of corporate debtor's loans filed Section 94 petition seeking insolvency resolution process after financial creditor declared accounts NPA, invoked guarantees, took physical possession of two mortgaged properties under SARFAESI in February 2022, and issued auction notice on 05.04.2025 fixing auction for 07.05.2025. Petition filed on 02.05.2025. IRP report under Section 99 recommended admission, but creditors objected citing limitation, misuse, and advanced recovery measures including pending DRT proceedings.

Findings of Court:
Petition dismissed as time-barred and filed with intent to obstruct SARFAESI auction rather than for genuine resolution; no plausible explanation for three-year delay post-possession.

Issues: (1) Whether petition under Section 94 was within limitation from default/guarantee invocation dates; (2) Whether filing constituted misuse to thwart advanced SARFAESI recovery including imminent auction.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 94 remedy available but cannot be invoked belatedly to frustrate SARFAESI proceedings at advanced stage like post-possession and pre-auction; limitation strictly applicable; pattern of inaction followed by last-minute filing indicates evasion, not resolution intent (Paras 17, 19, 23).

Result: Petition CP(IB)/151(CHE)/2025 dismissed; IA(IBC)/1034(CHE)/2025 taken on record.

Table of Content
1. details of petitioner, debts, guarantees, and defaults established. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 6 , 13 , 14)
2. petitioner's intent for ibc resolution and repayment plan. (Para 5)
3. creditors' objections on limitation and misuse of ibc. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. petition time-barred; filed post-auction notice. (Para 12 , 15 , 16)
5. petition filed to thwart advanced sarfaesi recovery. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 23)
6. sanctity of auction protected; redemption rights extinguished. (Para 20 , 21 , 22)
7. petition dismissed as time-barred and abusive. (Para 24 , 25)

COMMON ORDER

(Heard through Video Conferencing)

This petition CP(IB)151(CHE)2025 under Section 94(1) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Rule 6 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority for insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtors) Rules, 2019 has been filed by Shoukath Sheriff (Personal Guarantor) who stood guarantee for the loan facilities availed by the Corporate Debtor, A & Z Lifestyle Retail Private Limited from Jammu & Kashmir Bank Limited. The prayer made in the petition is to initiate Insolvency Resolution Process. An application IA(IBC)/1034(CHE)/2025 under Section 99 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code read with Rule 6 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 has been filed by Ms. B. Mekala, Interim Resolution Professional for taking on record the report recommending initiation of insolvency proceedings against the Petitioner/Personal Guarantor.

2. Part-I of the petition sets out the details of the Petitioner, Shoukath Sherif. He was born on 29.11.1965. He has been living at No.23/15, Fortune Villa, Tarapore Avenue, Harrington Road, 8th Avenue, Chetpet, Chennai-600 031. His annual income is stated as Rs.31,51,610/-. He has given the details of his and his immediate family members assets at page 11 to 13 of the petition. He was Director in Sherif Global Services Pvt. Ltd & IKIGAI Enterprises Private Limited.

3. Part-III of the petition sets out the details of the Financial Creditor, Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited. It has its office at No. 60, Rainbow Arcade, Pondy Bazaar, T. Nagar, Chennai-600 017 within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. The amount of debt is stated to be Rs.1,31,27,407.45/-. The date of default is stated as 03.03.2020. Demand Notice under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 was issued by the bank on 03.01.2020.

4. As per the averments made, in 2016, the Corporate Debtor, A & Z Lifestyle Retail Private Limited had availed cash credit facilities to the tune of Rs.72,00,000/- and term loan for Rs.95,78,000/- from Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited for its business purpose. To secure the credit facilities, the Petitioner and others had given their personal guarantees by executing the Guarantee Deeds. The loan of the Corporate Debtor was declared as NPA by the Bank/Financial Creditor. On 03.01.2020, the Financial Creditor issued a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 claiming Rs.1,31,27,407.45, to the Corporate Debtor and the Guarantors after invoking the bank guarantees. It also initiated recovery proceedings and scrutinisation proceedings against the Corporate Debtor and the Guarantors.

5. It is stated that the statement of affairs shows that the Petitioner does not have sufficient means to clear the entire debt of the creditors with the available resources though he wishes to repay to the creditors and resolve the state of insolvency under the aegis of IBC. The available means would enable him to submit a reasonable repayment plan under Section 105 of IBC, 2016 with the support of the RP for resolving the stage of insolvency on account of accumulation of debt and non-payment. It is stated that this petition has been filed with an intent that the insolvency be resolved in a time-bound manner for value maximization, overall debts be resolved by not restricting to only one creditor and the past claims be settled. It is stated that the Petitioner is neither the undischarged bankr

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