Facts
The Appellants (Personal Guarantors) executed Deeds of Guarantee in 2012 to secure Rupee Term Loan and Working Capital facilities for the Corporate Debtor, Videocon Industries Ltd.
Source reference: para. 2(i)Following defaults by the Corporate Debtor in 2016, CIRP was initiated against it in June 2018.
Source reference: para. 2(ii)The State Bank of India (Respondent) issued specific demand certificates/notices to the Appellants on 02.02.2018 and 20.02.2018 for outstanding dues.
Source reference: para. 2(iii)Statutory demand notices in Form B under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority for Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtors) Rules, 2019, were issued on 23.07.2020.
Source reference: para. 2(iv)The Bank filed Section 95 applications against both Appellants on 31.08.2020.
Source reference: para. 5, 8The Adjudicating Authority admitted the applications on 04.06.2024 and 14.06.2024, leading to these appeals on the grounds of limitation.
Source reference: para. 1-2Issues
Whether the Section 95 application was barred by limitation because the cause of action allegedly arose when the Principal Borrower defaulted in 2016, rather than when the guarantee was invoked in 2018?
Source reference: para. 5Law Applied
The Court primarily applied Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) regarding the initiation of insolvency proceedings against personal guarantors.
Source reference: para. 1It relied on the principle from *Syndicate Bank v. Channaveerappa Beleri* (2006) 11 SCC 504, which establishes that if a guarantee is "on-demand," the limitation period against the guarantor begins only when a demand is notice is issued, provided the debt is live against the principal borrower at that time.
Source reference: para. 16It further applied the precedent from *Pooja Ramesh Singh v. State Bank of India* (Co. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 329 of 2023), confirming that a guarantor’s liability is governed by the specific terms of the Deed of Guarantee.
Source reference: para. 17The court also distinguished *Laxmi Pat Surana v. Union Bank of India* (2021) 8 SCC 481, noting that while it establishes co-extensive liability, it does not override specific contract clauses regarding demand-based triggers for limitation.
Source reference: para. 14-15Reasoning
The Court rejected the Appellants' argument that limitation began automatically in 2016 upon the Corporate Debtor’s default.
Source reference: no citationIt observed that under Clause 8 of the Deed of Guarantee and Clause 2.1 of the Supplemental Joint Deed, the Appellants' liability was "unconditional" but specifically triggered "immediately on demand being made."
Source reference: para. 9-10The Court reasoned that in "on-demand" contracts, the cause of action for the purpose of limitation arises only when the demand notice is issued and remains unsatisfied.
Source reference: para. 17, 20Since the Bank issued demand certificates in February 2018 when the debt against the Corporate Debtor was still live (as CIRP only began in June 2018), the limitation period of three years commenced in February 2018.
Source reference: para. 18-19Consequently, the Section 95 applications filed in August 2020 were well within the prescribed three-year period under Art. 137 of the Limitation Act.
Source reference: para. 19Holding
The Court held that the applications under Section 95 were not barred by limitation as the cause of action against the Personal Guarantors was triggered by the demand notices issued in February 2018, not the underlying default of the Corporate Debtor in 2016.
The NCLAT upheld the Adjudicating Authority's orders admitting the insolvency process against the Appellants and dismissed both appeals.
Source reference: para. 22Original Court PDF
Rajkumar Nandlal Dhoot v. State Bank of India with Pradeep Nandlal Dhoot v. State Bank of India [Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos. 1443 & 1444 of 2024]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in