National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Dismisses Appeal Against Admission of Personal Insolvency Petition Due to Limitation Issues. Application Filed Under Section 95 of the IBC Found to be Within Limitation Based on Acknowledgment of Debt.

Tribunals: National Company Law Appellate Tribunal Bench: NEW DELHI
  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appeal was filed by a personal guarantor challenging an order admitting a petition under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC). The respondent bank had advanced loans to a corporate debtor, which subsequently defaulted, leading to the classification of the loan as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) in April 2012. The appellant had provided personal guarantees for these loans. Despite various settlement proposals and a part-payment made in February 2021, the bank initiated proceedings against the appellant under Section 95 of the IBC in September 2023. The appellant argued that the application was barred by limitation, asserting that the acknowledgment of liability from earlier settlement proposals only extended the limitation until April 2019. The respondent bank countered that the part-payment made in 2021 was a valid acknowledgment that kept the application within the limitation period. The court analyzed the arguments, emphasizing that the deed of guarantee binds the guarantor to any part-payment made by the borrower. It concluded that the dismissal of a previous recovery application for default did not extinguish the debt. Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming the admission of the petition under Section 95 of the IBC.

Headnote

A) Insolvency Law - Personal Insolvency Resolution Process - Limitation for Filing - Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 95 - The appellant contended that the application was barred by limitation as the account was classified as NPA in 2012 and recalled in 2015. The court held that part-payment made in 2021 constituted an acknowledgment of liability, thus keeping the application within the limitation period (Paras 3-8).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the application filed under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was within limitation.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the admission of the petition under Section 95 of the IBC. The court found that the part-payment made by the corporate debtor constituted an acknowledgment of liability, thus keeping the application within the limitation period.

Law Points

  • Insolvency
  • Personal Guarantee
  • Limitation
  • Acknowledgment of Debt
  • NPA Classification
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (NCLAT) (07) 54

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 264 of 2025

2026-07-17

Justice N. Seshasayee, Indevar Pandey

Mr. Aman Raj Singh, Mr. Gautam Singhal, Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, Ms. Anjali Maurya, Ms. Suraksha Mandhyan, Mr. Nishant Awana, Mr. Suraj Kundu

Mrs. Arvinder Kaur

Mr. Santanu Kumar Samanta, M/s Bank of Maharashtra

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against the admission of a personal insolvency petition.

Remedy Sought

The appellant sought to challenge the order admitting the petition under Section 95 of the IBC.

Filing Reason

The respondent bank filed the petition due to non-repayment of loans classified as NPA.

Previous Decisions

The previous recovery application was dismissed for default, not on merit.

Issues

Whether the application under Section 95 was within limitation Effect of part-payment on limitation

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant argued that the application was barred by limitation due to NPA classification and recall of loans. The respondent contended that part-payment acknowledged the debt and kept the application within limitation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that part-payment made by the borrower binds the guarantor and constitutes an acknowledgment of liability, thus affecting the limitation period for filing under Section 95 of the IBC.

Judgment Excerpts

The principal question, which falls for consideration is whether the application filed under Section 95 of the IBC was within limitation. We are unable to agree with the contention of the appellant.

Procedural History

The appeal was filed against the order of the Adjudicating Authority admitting the petition under Section 95 of the IBC. The appellant appeared before the Adjudicating Authority and was given opportunities to file a reply, which were ultimately closed due to non-filing.

Acts & Sections

  • Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016: Section 95
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Bombay at Goa Enhances Compensation for Death of Minor Child in Motor Accident. Parents awarded Rs. 1,50,000 with interest under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for loss of dependency and consortium.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Reservation for Postgraduate Courses. Court found no merit in the petition as junior residents cannot claim parity with regularly recruited medical officers for in-service benefits under the Employees’ S...