01Facts
The Appellant (SBI) filed applications under Section 95 of the IBC against Personal Guarantors of two Corporate Debtors: M/s Kandla Energy and Chemicals Ltd. and Shri Jalaram Rice Industries Pvt. Ltd.
¶ 3In the first set of appeals (893 & 894), the DRT passed a decree on 25.06.2018; the Section 95 application was filed on 24.01.2023.
¶ 3(i)-(iii)In the second set (1280 & 1281), the DRT passed a decree on 19.03.2018; Section 95 applications were filed on 25.02.2023.
¶ 3(iii)-(iv)The Adjudicating Authority (NCLT Ahmedabad) dismissed all applications as barred by time, holding that under the Supreme Court’s Suo Motu extension orders, the limitation expired on 30.05.2022 (90 days from 01.03.2022).
¶ 3(iv)02Issues
i.Whether the Appellant was entitled to the "balance period of limitation" remaining as of 15.03.2020 to be available from 01.03.2022, or was restricted to a flat 90-day extension.
¶ 7 / 2003Law Applied
The Court primarily applied Section 95 and Section 238A of the IBC, 2016, read with Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which prescribes a three-year period for filing applications.
¶ 2, 26It relied extensively on the Supreme Court’s directions in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, M.A. No. 21 of 2022, which mandated the exclusion of the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 for limitation purposes.
¶ 10The Court further applied the principles from Prakash Corporates v. Dee Vee Projects Ltd. and Arif Azim Company Ltd. v. Aptech Ltd., which established that such exclusion results in the enlargement of time and that the "balance period" remaining on 15.03.2020 becomes available from 01.03.2022.
¶ 12, 14, 15Provisions in the judgment · 11 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Section 7Section 9Section 10Section 95
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 23
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138
Limitation Act, 1963 Section 5Section 12Section 13Section 14Section 15
04Reasoning
The NCLAT found that the NCLT erroneously applied only the 90-day grace period mentioned in Paragraph 5.III of the Supreme Court’s Suo Motu order.
¶ 27The Appellate Tribunal clarified that the Supreme Court's order contains two distinct benefits: (1) if the limitation expired during the COVID period, the litigant gets the balance period remaining as of 15.03.2020 starting from 01.03.2022; and (2) if that balance is less than 90 days, it is extended to a minimum of 90 days.
¶ 10, 17, 20In appeals 893 & 894, since 1 year, 3 months, and 9 days of the three-year term remained as of 15.03.2020, that same duration became available from 01.03.2022, extending the deadline to 10.06.2023.
¶ 25Similarly, in appeals 1280 & 1281, the balance of 1 year and 3 days extended the deadline to 04.03.2023.
¶ 25Since the SBI filed its applications in January and February 2023, they fell within these extended "longer periods" as permitted by the Supreme Court’s proviso that "the longer period shall apply".
¶ 20, 2505Holding
The NCLAT allowed the appeals and set aside the NCLT’s orders.
¶ 29It held that the Section 95 applications were not barred by time because the Appellant was entitled to the full balance of the limitation period remaining as of 15.03.2020, calculated from 01.03.2022, rather than just 90 days.
¶ 26The Tribunal revived C.P.(IB)/61(AHM)2023, C.P.(IB)/60(AHM)2023, C.P.(IB) No.100/NCLT/AHM/2023, and C.P.(IB) No.101/NCLT/AHM/2023 for fresh consideration on merits.
¶ 29Original Court PDF
State Bank of India v. Sanjay Baleshwar Rai (and consolidated appeals)
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
