2026 (7) TMI 1198

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dicial) Facts: 1. This appeal is directed by the personal guarantor challenging an order admitting the petition filed by the respondent under section 95 IBC. 2. The scope of this appeal falls within a narrow campus. The respondent bank had advanced a loan of Rs.1.0 Crore to the Corporate Debtor for the purchase of plant and machinery, construction of factory building, and also cash credit facility to the tune of Rs. 1.5 crore. Subsequently, certain additional loan facilities were also extended to the Corporate Debtor. Other relevant facts are: a) Vide Deed of Guarantee dated 24.04.2010, the appellant herein gave a personal guarantee for the aforesaid loan advanced to the Corporate Debtor. Thereafter, some additional loan t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... issued a notice to the Personal Guarantor under Rule 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority for Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtors) Rules, 2019. The said statutory notice did not evoke any response from the appellant. In these circumstances, the respondent-bank instituted a petition under Section 95 of the IBC, 2016 against the appellant seeking initiation of the Personal Insolvency Resolution Process (PIRP). f) The appellant entered appearance before the Adjudicating Authority. On 17.01.2024, the Adjudicating Authority appointed the Resolution Professional as contemplated under section 99 of IBC. The RP filed his report dated 21.03.2024 vide IA 1551 of 202....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ventually to 18.09.2024. And between these days, the appellant was granted time to file her reply and since the reply was not so filed, the Adjudicating Authority closed the opportunity to defend the petition or the Financial Creditor under Sec. 95 of the IBC. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant initially harped much on wrong email ID and mobile number of the appellant but inasmuch a notice had been served on her through speed post and that she indeed had appeared through her counsel those issues have zero consequence now. So far as not filing of the reply, the learned counsel tries to make out the case that it was owing to certain some special reasons, which reasons he has not made clear..." j) On 22.09.2025, the appellant wa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... were recalled in the year 2015. According to the appellant, even if the settlement proposals dated 05.01.2016 and 28.04.2016 are treated as acknowledgements of liability, limitation stood extended only by three years and up to 28.04.2019, and hence the institution of the petition under Sec. 95 in 2023 are therefore beyond time. And, the alleged proposal for settlement in 2020 and the alleged part payment of the debt made on 03.02.2021 do not constitute valid acknowledgements and is not capable of extending limitation. This apart, even O.A. No. 226 of 2013 which the respondent has instituted was dismissed on 31.05.2018. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-bank refuted the appellant's contentions and pitched its argument....