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) 1661

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
Brajendra Mani Tripathi, Judicial Member, Man Mohan Gupta, Technical Member
State Bank of India – Appellant
Versus
Mahendra Kumar Rajpal – Respondent
C.P.(IB)/25(MP)2021|CP/IB/25/2021|CP(IB) No. 43/10/NCLT/AHM/2020|IA No. 7(IND) of 2021|IA No. 193 of 2021|O.A. no. 1063/2020



Advocates:
For the Applicant:Mr. Rohit Dubey, Ld. Advocate, Ms. Teena Saraswat Pandey
For the Respondent:Ms. Soumya Dharwa, Ld. Advocate

Insolvency proceedings against personal guarantor admissible despite corporate debtor's liquidation if filed before same authority; application within limitation from NPA; co-extensive liability confirmed; RP report recommendatory, leading to admission under Section 100.

Headnote:(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 - Sections 95, 97, 99, 100 - Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantors - Application by financial creditor admitted against personal guarantor of corporate debtor in liquidation - Account classified as NPA on 25.02.2020 with default of Rs.10,50,06,554.56/- - Demand notice issued on 06.08.2020 - No response or repayment by guarantor - RP confirmed debt, default, and co-extensive liability under Section 128 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Application within limitation; proceedings not stayed despite pendency of constitutional challenge - Supreme Court upheld vires of Sections 94-100 - RP report recommendatory; no adjudication till Section 100 - Moratorium imposed; RP to invite claims, prepare creditor list, facilitate repayment plan. (Paras 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 17)

(B) Limitation - Application under Section 95 filed on 19.07.2021 within three years from NPA date (25.02.2020) - Not barred. (Para 9)

(C) Jurisdiction - Pending liquidation of corporate debtor does not bar PG proceedings before same Adjudicating Authority under Section 60(2). (Para 8)

Facts of the case:
Financial creditor granted credit facilities aggregating Rs.14 crores to corporate debtor, secured by personal guarantees. Account turned NPA on 25.02.2020. Demand notice issued to personal guarantor; no repayment. Corporate debtor in liquidation. Section 95 application filed 19.07.2021. RP appointed; report recommended admission after verifying debt and default. Guarantor did not respond to notices or dispute guarantee.

Findings of Court:
Application admitted under Section 100; insolvency resolution process initiated against personal guarantor. Moratorium u/s 96 imposed for 180 days. Existing RP continued; directed to publish notice, collate claims, submit repayment plan within timelines.

Issues: (i) Whether IRP can be initiated against PG when corporate debtor in liquidation? (ii) Whether Section 95 application barred by limitation?

Ratio Decidendi: IRP maintainable against PG despite corporate debtor's liquidation; application within limitation from NPA; guarantor's liability co-extensive and unconditional; RP's facilitative role upheld per Supreme Court; no violation of natural justice.

Result: Application admitted.

Table of Content
1. sbi seeks irp against personal guarantor for corporate debt default (Para 1 , 2)
2. respondent's failed rp replacement bid dismissed (Para 3 , 4)
3. rp confirms debt, default, recommends irp initiation (Para 5 , 6)
4. nclt jurisdiction valid despite cd liquidation; not time-barred (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
5. sections 94-100 constitutionally valid per sc (Para 10 , 11)
6. unchallenged guarantee, demand notice, no repayment (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
7. co-extensive unconditional continuing guarantee liability (Para 15 , 16)
8. application admitted; irp initiated against pg (Para 17 , 18)

JUDGEMENT

1. The present application has been filed on 19.07.2021 under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “Code”) read with Rule 7(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority for Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtors) Rules, 2019 by State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as “Financial Creditor”/“Applicant”) for the purpose of initiating insolvency resolution process against Mahendra Kumar Rajpal (hereinafter referred to as “Respondent/Personal Guarantor”), Personal Guarantor of the M/s Rajpal Autolink Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as “Corporate Debtor”) having Corporate Identification Number (CIN): U50100MP2011PTC026888) for default of an amount of Rs. 10,19,27,157/- (Rupees Ten Crores Nineteen Lakhs Twenty-Seven Thousand One Hundred Fifty-Seven Only).

Submissions by the Applicant/Financial Creditor

2. The averments made by the Financial Creditor in its Application and argued by the learned counsel for the Applicant are summarized hereunder:

I. The Financial Creditor submitted that the Corporate debtor in its meeting of board of directors on 13.02.2018, resolved to avail the cash credit limit of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Crores Only) and Line of Credit of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crores Only) aggregating to Rs. 12,00,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Crores Only). The Financial Creditor agreed to sanction the aggregate credit facilities for which requisite documents were executed by the Corporate Debtor through its Directors and other individual as guarantors in order to secure the repayment of credit facilities on 17.02.2018. The Applicant Bank agreed to enhance credit facilities to Rs. 14,00,00,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Crores Only) after receiving Letter of arrangement for which requisite documents were executed by the Corporate Debtor through its Directors as guarantors in order to secure the repayment of credit facilities on 15.02.2019. On account of financial indiscipline, the account of the Corporate Debtor was classified as Non-Performing Asset (hereinafter referred to as “NPA”) on 25.02.2020

II. Subsequently, the Financial Creditor initiated recovery proceedings by filing an Original Application (O.A. no. 1063/2020) under Section 19(1) of the RDDBFI Act, 1993, before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT), Jabalpur, which remains pending for adjudication. Furthermore, the Financial Creditor also issued a statutory Demand Notice in Form B on 06.08.2020 to the Respondent and other individual guarantors, demanding the credit facilities. It is also recorded that the Liquidation Process for the Corporate Debtor was subsequently initiated vide order dated 23.04.2021 passed by this Adjudicating Authority in IA No. 7(IND) of 2021 in CP(IB) No. 43/10/NCLT/AHM/2020, and the Applicant has accordingly submitted its claim in Form D to the Liquidator on 17.05.2021. However, the Corporate Debtor took no steps for the settlement of the amount due to the Financial Creditor and also the present Respondent being personal guarantor have not taken any steps for the repayment.

3. The Respondent/Personal Guarantor has not filed any substantive Reply or written objections to the present Application filed under Section 95 of the Code. One of the applications filed by the Respondent was IA No. 193 of 2021 under Section 98 of the Code seeking repla

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