TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 377
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Section 94 of the Code seeking initiation of CIRP as the personal guarantor. However, the Adjudicating Authority rejected the Appellant's petition on 24.02.2025 with exorbitant cost of Rs.1 lakh, without addressing the merits of the petition. Submissions of the Appellant 3. The Appellant - Deepti Pankaj Chugh is the personal guarantor for the Corporate Debtor - M/s. Aditya Prints Pvt. Ltd. which availed loans from State Bank of India. Somewhere in 2002 M/s. Aditya Prints Pvt. Ltd. was put under Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process and is currently under liquidation. 4. It is claimed by the Appellant that on 27.01.2022, the Respondent i.e. State Bank of India issued a notice under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 to the Appellant as the personal guarantor and to the Corporate Debtor - M/s. Aditya Prints Pvt. Ltd. On 11.01.2024, the Appellant filed CP (IB) No. 55/2024 before NCLT seeking initiation of PIRP under Section 94 of the Code. However, NCLT dismissed the Company Petition granting the Appellant liberty to file a fresh petition with proper declarations. Accordingly, the Appellant filed another CP (IB) No. 76/2025 before the NCLT on 31.01.2025 seeking initiat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the SARFAESI Act issued to the Corporate Debtor, a notice to the personal guarantor was also issued on 20.03.2017, which is brought on record and his placed in the reply affidavit @ page 12. 10. Respondent - SBI also brings to our notice that a perusal of order dated 17.09.2025 of this Appellate Tribunal would show that the case of the Appellant before this Appellate Tribunal was that the Appellant had earlier filed a Section 94 petition i.e. [CP (IB) No. 55/2024] which was dismissed by NCLT owing to certain defects granting liberty to the Appellant to file a fresh petition, and that is how the CP (IB) No. 76/2025 in the present case was filed on 31.01.2025 before the NCLT - which as per the Respondent-Bank is an incorrect statement and ought to be taken seriously in view of the fact that after the earlier CP (IB) No. 55/2024 of the Appellant was dismissed with liberty to file a fresh one, the Appellant filed a fresh Section 94 IBC Petition [CP (IB) No. 147/2024] before the NCLT on 19.03.2024, which was dismissed by the Ld. NCLT by its Order dated 01.05.2024 holding the said petition to be barred by limitation being filed beyond the period of 3 years from 20.03.2017 when Demand ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e interim moratorium", thereby precluding the Respondent-Bank from auctioning the mortgaged property and recover the public money, as under: - 28.07.2026 The credit facilities advanced to the CD/borrower: M/s Aditya Prints Pvt. Ltd. by the Respondent No. 1-SBI were classified as Non-performing Asset (NPA) on 28.07.2016 w.e.f. 28.10.2013. The said credit facilities, admittedly, were secured, also, by the personal guarantee of the Appellant: Deepti Pankaj Chugh. 20.03.2017 The Respondent-SBI issued Demand Notice dated 20.03.2017 under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 to the borrower/CD as also separately to the Personal Guarantor-Appellant calling upon to make payment of the outstanding dues of Rs.49,76,13,119,38/- as on 20.03.2017 within 60 days. 27.01.2022 The Respondent-SBI issued Possession Notice dated 27.01.2022 under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. 10.05.2022 20.07.2023 Meanwhile, the IBC Proceedings were initiated for resolution of the CD: M/s Aditya Prints Pvt. Ltd. in the year 2021 culminating into an Admission Order dated 10.05.2022, followed by the Liquidation Order dated 20.07.2023. 11.01.2024 Since the Respondent-SBI was p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der dated 09.01.2025 was clearly barred by principle of Res-judicata. 17.11.2025 By Order dated 14.10.2025 this Hon. NCLAT directed the Appellant to pay process fee for fresh issuance of Notice to the Respondent-Bank, whereafter, the Respondent-Bank appeared through counsel before this NCLAT on 17.11.2025 and sought time to file its Reply, hence, the present Reply is being filed herewith to assist this Hon. Appellate Tribunal. 14. The Respondent-SBI contends that the present appeal shall be dismissed on the ground of 'Res-judicata' since the earlier CP (IB) No. 147/2024 of the Appellant-Deepti Pankaj Chugh has already been dismissed by the Ld. NCLT by its Order dated 01.05.2024 on merits, yet the present appeal has been filed impugning the Order dated 24.02.2025 dismissing the subsequent Section 94 IBC Petition of the Appellant i.e. CP (IB) No. 76/2025 as not-maintainable. 15. In identical facts, this Appellate Tribunal has already dismissed the Company Appeal (AT) (INS.) No. 718/2025 of the other Personal Guarantor-Saurabh Premprakash Chugh on 23.07.2025 holding that the Order dated 09.01.2025 in his earlier Section 94 IBC Petition was passed on merits and the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uttle the recovery process initiated by the Respondent-Bank to sell the mortgaged property and recover the outstanding dues. 20. The reliance placed by the Appellant on the judgment dated 05.01.2023 of this Hon. NCLAT in Amanjyot Singh v. Navneet Kumar Jain, Company Appeal (AT) (INS.) No. 961/2022 is completely misplaced and is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 21. Respondent-SBI relies on the judgment of this Appellate Tribunal in Syed Sirajis Salikin Khadri v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. & Anr., Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 455/2025. 22. The above submissions clearly go to show that the Appellant had approached the Ld. NCLT by filing the Section 94 IBC Petition with an intent other than insolvency resolution, thus, has been rightly dismissed by the Ld. NCLT by its impugned Order dated 24.02.2025. 23. The NCLT has also recorded that the Demand Notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, 2002 was issued on 20.03.2017, yet the Section 94 IBC Petition has been filed beyond the limitation period of 3 years and thus, has rightly dismissed the Section 94 IBC Petition on this ground too. 24. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the enti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lant to file a fresh petition, it is the claim of the Appellant that this is how the CP (IB) No. 76/2025 in the present case was filed on 31.01.2025 before the NCLT. However, this is an incorrect statement, as after the earlier CP (IB) No. 55/2024 of the Appellant was dismissed with liberty to file a fresh one, the Appellant filed a fresh Section 94 IBC Petition [CP (IB) No. 147/2024] before the NCLT on 19.03.2024, which was dismissed by the Ld. NCLT by its Order dated 01.05.2024 holding the said petition to be barred by limitation being filed beyond the period of 3 years from 20.03.2017, when the Demand Notice was issued to the Appellant by the Respondent-SBI. Thus, we find that the Section 94 IBC Petition in the present case [CP (IB) No. 76/2025] is not the petition which was filed with liberty to file fresh one, but is another identical petition filed by the Appellant. We are convinced by the argument of the Respondent-SBI that it is only to scuttle the sale of the mortgaged property and scuttle the recovery process of the Bank-and thus we find that it is also not-maintainable being hit by the principle of res-judicata. 30. Perusal of the dismissal order in CP (IB) No. 147 of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted by the Respondent Bank for selling the mortgage property and recovering the outstanding dues. 33. It is also brought to our notice that the other Personal Guarantor, namely Shri Sorabh Preem Prakash Chugh, had filed an Appeal before this Appellate Tribunal in CA (AT) (Ins) No. 718/2025, which was dismissed by this Tribunal on merits. The facts in the present appeal are similar, and therefore the appellant deserves the same treatment. 34. The Appellant has placed reliance on Amanjot Singh versus Navneet Kumar Jain, C.A.AT.INS number 961/2022, but the facts in that case are completely different and are not applicable in the present case. Therefore, the Appellant doesn't get any assistance from that judgment. 35. Moreover, this Appellate Tribunal had noted in its judgment in Syed Sirajis Salikin Khadri v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. & Anr., Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 455/2025, dated 25.04.2025 that: - "...Section 94 proceedings have been initiated by the Appellant more or less coinciding with the issue of possession notice dated 11.11.2022 by Respondent No.1. The present Section 94 application is clearly yet another salvo on the part of the Ap....