Facts
The Appellant (SBI) filed applications under Section 95 of the IBC against several Personal Guarantors following defaults by Corporate Debtors.
Source reference: no citationIn Appeals 893 and 894, the DRT passed a decree on 25.06.2018.
Source reference: p. 4The Section 95 application for Appeals 893 and 894 was filed on 24.01.2023.
Source reference: p. 4In Appeals 1280 and 1281, the DRT decree was passed on 19.03.2018.
Source reference: p. 5The Section 95 application for Appeals 1280 and 1281 was filed on 25.02.2023.
Source reference: p. 8The Adjudicating Authority (NCLT Ahmedabad) dismissed all applications as time-barred, holding that under the Supreme Court’s Suo Motu extension orders, the limitation for cases expiring during the pandemic ended on 30.05.2022 (90 days from 01.03.2022).
Source reference: p. 4, 22Issues
Whether the Appellant was entitled only to a fixed 90-day extension from 01.03.2022 or the full balance period of limitation remaining as of 15.03.2020.
Source reference: para. 7 / p. 17Whether the Adjudicating Authority correctly interpreted the Supreme Court's directions in *In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation*.
Source reference: para. 20 / p. 18Law Applied
Section 95 and Section 238A of the IBC regarding the limitation period for insolvency proceedings.
Source reference: p. 3, 22Supreme Court’s directions in *MA No. 21 of 2022 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020*, specifically Paragraph 5(III), which stipulates that if the balance period of limitation remaining as of 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, the longer period shall apply.
Source reference: p. 11The ruling in *Prakash Corporates v. Dee Vee Projects Ltd.*, clarifying that the excluded period results in an enlargement of time over the prescribed period.
Source reference: p. 12The judgment in *Arif Azim Company Ltd. v. Aptech Ltd.*, which affirmed that balance limitation as of 15.03.2020 becomes available from 01.03.2022.
Source reference: p. 13Reasoning
The NCLAT reasoned that the Adjudicating Authority erred by restricting the extension to a flat 90 days.
Source reference: no citationUnder Paragraph 5 of the Supreme Court's *Suo Motu* order, the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 must be excluded from the three-year limitation period.
Source reference: para. 11, 26For Appeals 893/894, the limitation was set to expire on 24.06.2021; as of the COVID-19 "freeze" date (15.03.2020), 1 year, 3 months, and 9 days of the limitation period remained unused.
Source reference: para. 25Consequently, this "balance" became available starting 01.03.2022, extending the deadline to 10.06.2023 for Appeals 893/894.
Source reference: para. 25Similarly, for Appeals 1280/1281, the balance of 1 year and 3 days extended the deadline to 04.03.2023.
Source reference: para. 25Since the SBI filed its applications in January and February 2023 respectively, they fell within these extended "longer periods" as permitted by the Apex Court.
Source reference: para. 26Holding
The NCLAT allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned orders and reviving the Section 95 applications for fresh consideration.
The Court held that when the balance period of limitation remaining (calculated by excluding the pandemic period) is greater than 90 days, the litigant is entitled to that longer period starting from 01.03.2022.
Source reference: para. 20, 26The applications were declared to be within the period of limitation.
Source reference: para. 27Original Court PDF
State Bank of India v. Sanjay Baleshwar Rai [Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 893, 894, 1280 & 1281 of 2024]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in