In the matter of Canara Bank vs. Thota Venkata Ramana & Ors.

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL AMARAVATI BENCH (Through Hybrid Mode) Item No.3 IA (IBC)/420/2025 in CP (IB)/5/95/AMR/2025 IN THE MATTER OF: Canara Bank … Petitioner/Creditor Versus Smt.Thota Venkata Ramana, PG of M/s Sri Krishna Stockist & Traders Pvt Ltd … Respondents Under Section: 95, 60(5) of IBC, 2016 Rule: 11 of NCLT Rules, 2016 Order delivered on 09.01.2026 CORAM: SHRI UMESH KUMAR SHUKLA SHRI KISHORE VEMULAPALLI HON’BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL) HON’BLE MEMBER (JUDICIAL) PRESENT: For Financial Creditor : Mr. Dishit Bhattacharjee, Adv. For Personal Guarantor : For Resolution Professional : Mr. M. Ramarao, Adv. ORDER

Orders pronounced and recorded vide separate sheets. IA (IBC)/420/2025 is allowed and disposed of. CP (IB)/5/95/AMR/2025 is admitted. Sd/- Sd/- (UMESH KUMAR SHUKLA) (KISHORE VEMULAPALLI) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Mohan (Steno) & RSN (PS)

AMARAVATI BENCH AT MANGALAGIRI (Exercising powers of Adjudicating Authority under The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016) IA (IBC)/420/2025 in CP (IB)/5/95/AMR/2025 And CP (IB)/5/95/AMR/2025 Application under Section 95 and Section 60(5) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority for Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtors) Rules, 2019

In CP (IB)/5/95/AMR/2025 & IA (IBC)/420/2025: Canara Bank Head Office situated at 112, Jayachamarajendera Road, Bangalore -560002 Having its branches amongst other places at Stressed Assets Management Branch, # 1-7-1, T.S.R. Complex, 2nd Floor, S.P. Road, Secunderabad-500003. Represented by its Chief Manager Koka Sivanadh, S/o. Sri Suryanarayana Rao ……………………….… Financial Creditor AND 1. Smt.Thota Venkata Ramana W/o Thota Kanna Rao The Personal Guarantor of M/s Sri Krishna Stockist and Traders Pvt. Ltd., Plot No. 101, Venkata Ramana Residency, Near Kandukuri Veereshalingam Asthika kalasha, Y Junction, Rajahmundry, District East Godavari-533103, Andhra Pradesh. ……………………. Personal Guarantor 2. M/s. Sri Krishna Stockist & Traders Pvt. Ltd. having its Registered Office situated at 1-8-5 Kovvur Mandal, I Pangidi village, West Godavari-534342, Andhra Pradesh. ……………………….... Corporate Debtor

Order delivered on: 09.01.2026 Coram: HON’BLE SHRI KISHORE VEMULAPALLI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON’BLE SHRI UMESH KUMAR SHUKLA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Parties/Counsels Appearance: For Financial Creditor : Mr. Dishit Bhattacharjee, Adv. For Personal Guarantor : For Resolution Professional : Mr. M. Ramarao, Adv. ORDER PER: BENCH The present Company Petition bearing No. CP (IB)/5/95/AMR/2025 (hereinafter referred to as the “Petition”) has been e-filed on 30.12.2024 and physically filed on 20.12.2024 vide Diary No. 1805, by the Canara Bank (hereinafter referred to as the “Financial Creditor”) through its Chief Manager, Shri Koka Sivanadh, under Section 95 read with Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “IBC” or “Code”) read with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority for Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtors) Rules, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as the “Personal Guarantors Rules”) seeking to initiate Personal Insolvency Resolution Process (hereinafter referred to as the “PIRP”) against Smt. Thota Venkata Ramana (hereinafter referred to as the “Personal Guarantor”), who is the Personal Guarantor of the loan accounts of M/s Sri Krishna Stockist & Traders Pvt. Ltd (hereinafter referred to as the “Corporate Debtor” or the “Principal Borrower”) and who has extended the Personal Guarantee to the Financial Creditor.

2. The registered office of the Corporate Debtor is at Door No. 1-8-5, Kovvur Mandal, I Pangidi Village, District West Godavari-534342 Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, the subject matter of this Petition is under the territorial jurisdiction of this Adjudicating Authority.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

3. The facts of the case, as stated by the Financial Creditor in its Petition are as follows:

(i) The Corporate Debtor is engaged in trading business and also involved in wholesale on a fee or contract basis, includes commission agents, commodity brokers and auctioneers and all other wholesalers, who trade on behalf and on the account of others and has availed cash credit facilities from the Financial Creditor. The loan facility was sanctioned to the Corporate Debtor against the hypothecation of exclusive first charge on land and building, stocks and book debts.

(ii) To secure the repayment of financial assistance, the Personal Guarantor executed a Guarantee Agreement dated 13.02.2014 securing the repayment of financial assistance availed by the Corporate Debtor. The summary of cash credit availed by the Corporate Debtor from the Financial Creditor is given below:

(iii) The Corporate Debtor eventually failed to maintain the account as per the terms on which the loan was sanctioned by the Financial Creditor and hence, the account of the Corporate Debtor was classified as Non- Performing Asset (hereinafter referred to as the “NPA”) on 31.08.2017 as per the directives of the Reserve Bank of India.

(iv) To recover the dues, the Financial Creditor initiated proceedings under The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the “SARFAESI”) and issued Demand Notice dated 08.11.2017 under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI addressed to the Corporate Debtor and Personal Guarantor, demanding payment of the due debts amounting to Rs.161,41,73,722/- plus interest being calculated from 01.11.2017.

(v) When the Corporate Debtor failed to repay the due debts as per the Demand Notice dated 08.11.2017, the Financial Creditor filed OA No.340/2018 before the Hon’ble Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the “DRT”). Consequently, RC No.45 of 2018 was duly issued by the Hon’ble DRT.

(vi) The Corporate Debtor gave an OTS offer on 29.02.2020 of Rs.18 crores, which the Financial Creditor rejected, and subsequently the Corporate Debtor gave another OTS offer on 29.02.2020 of Rs.18.5 crores on 30.11.2020, which was also rejected. Hence, the Corporate Debtor duly acknowledged and promised to pay the outstanding debt due to the Financial Creditor.

(vii) The Financial Creditor issued a Form B Demand Notice dated 02.05.2024 to the Personal Guarantors through registered post, according to which, the Corporate Debtor and the Personal Guarantors are liable to pay the debt of Rs. 494,29,54,852.74.

(viii) Despite receipt of Demand Notice, the Personal Guarantor has not come forward to pay the outstanding amounts. Therefore, it remains an undisputed fact that as on date, the Personal Guarantor has not made payments to the Financial Creditor towards satisfaction of the unpaid financial debt.

4. This Adjudicating Authority vide its Order dated 05.02.2025 appointed Mr. Immaneni Eswar Rao, as the Resolution Professional (hereinafter referred to as the “RP”) with the direction to submit the report under Section 99 of the IBC.

REPORT FILED BY THE RP: 5. In compliance of this Adjudicating Authority Order dated 05.02.2025, the RP filed IA(IBC)/61/2025 on e-portal on 22.02.2025 and physically on 27.02.2025 vide Diary No. 318 to place on record the RP Report under Section 99 of the Code, which was taken on record by this Adjudicating Authority vide its Order dated 04.03.2025. The contents of the RP Report has been summarised as under:

(i) The Petition is well within the period of limitation under the Code and not barred by the period of limitation prescribed/ laid down under the Code. A table with sequence of events evidencing the compliance of limitation period from the date of Corporate Debtor being declared as NPA is as below:

(ii) The compliance of Section 95 of the IBC is as under:

6. This Adjudicating Authority vide its Order dated 07.04.2025 directed the Financial Creditor to take out personal notice and serve the same upon the Personal Guarantor through Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due and file proof of service thereto. In compliance of the above Order, the Financial Creditor filed a Compliance Memo on e-portal on 28.04.2025 and physically on 29.04.2025 vide Diary No.812 stating that the notice was sent to the Personal Guarantor under Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due and the same was returned unserved with an endorsement of “Addressee left without instructions”. Therefore, this Adjudicating Authority vide its Order dated 06.05.2025, granted the permission to the Financial Creditor to issue a notice by way of substituted service to the Personal Guarantor through paper publication in two daily newspapers, namely, ‘Andhra Jyothi’ (Telugu Daily) and ‘Business Standard’ (English Daily) and file a memo of compliance within two weeks.

7. In compliance of the above Order dated 06.05.2025, the Financial Creditor filed a memo on the e-portal on 09.06.2025 and physically on 16.06.2025 vide Diary No.1153 stating that he has published the notice to the Personal Guarantor through paper publication in Business Standard (English Daily) and ‘Andhra Jyothi’ (Telugu Daily) on 28.05.2025. The above notice is reproduced below;

8. However, in spite of the service of notice through substituted service to the Personal Guarantor, there was no representation on behalf of the Personal Guarantor either through Counsel or in person in the hearing held on 18.06.2025. Therefore, this Adjudicating Authority vide its Order dated 18.06.2025 set the Personal Guarantor as ex-parte.

9. During the hearing held on 22.08.2025, the Proxy Counsel for the Financial Creditor sought one week's time to get instructions from the Financial Creditor whether notice of invocation has been served on the Personal Guarantor as per the address mentioned in the Guarantee Agreement dated 13.02.2014. During the hearing held on 18.11.2025, the Financial Creditor sought time to submit the proof of service of notice served on the Personal Guarantor at the address mentioned in the Guarantee Agreement dated 13.02.2014.

10. Thereafter, the Financial Creditor filed the Interlocutory Application bearing No. IA(IBC)/420/2025 (hereinafter referred to as the “IA 420/2025”) under Section 60(5) of the IBC read with Rule 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016 (e-filed on 04.12.2025 and physically on 04.12.2025 vide Diary No. 2433) seeking to take on record the additional documents stating that:

(i) The Personal Guarantor deposited a document dated 26.07.2016 (hereinafter referred to as the "Address Change Letter") with the address "Flat No.103, Sowmya Royal Apartments, Near Ladies Club, Prakash Nagar, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh." (hereinafter referred to as the “Updated Address-1”).

(ii) Accordingly, the Financial Creditor issued the Recall Notice dated 05.10.2017 to above Updated Address-1, which was duly served upon the Personal Guarantor as evidenced by the Acknowledgement Card (annexed as "Annexure 2" in the IA 420/2025).

(iii) Subsequently, the Financial Creditor invoked the personal guarantee by issuance of Section 13(2) Notice dated 08.11.2017, which is addressed to both the Corporate Debtor and the Personal Guarantor.

(iv) A Clause of the Guarantee Agreement dated 13.02.2014 executed by the Personal Guarantor in favour of the Financial Creditor explicitly provides that all notices shall be deemed served, if sent to the last known address of the Personal Guarantor. At the time of issuance of the Section 13(2) notice, the last known address of the Personal Guarantor was Updated Address-1.

(v) The Hon'ble NCLAT, New Delhi in the matter of Paresh Rastogi v. Omkara Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. and Anr., (2025) ibclaw.in 194 NCLAT, held that the Guarantee Deed unequivocally provides that all communications, including Notices of Demand, sent to the address provided in the Guarantee Deed or the last known address shall be deemed valid service. The Hon'ble NCLAT further clarified that the Personal Guarantor's failure to update the address or respond to notices served at the last known address does not vitiate the service's validity. Similarly, the Hon'ble NCLAT, New Delhi in Mahdoom Bava Bahrudeen Noorul Ameen v. State Bank of India and Anr., (2025) ibclaw.in 108 NCLAT, observed that non-service of the Rule 7 Demand Notice does not absolve the Personal Guarantor from liability under the Deed of Guarantee, especially when the Personal Guarantor has not denied execution of the guarantee or service of other notices under SARFAESI. The Hon'ble NCLAT emphasized the Personal Guarantor's duty to notify the bank of any change in address and held that sufficient time was available to the Personal Guarantor to respond or make payment.

(vi) The Personal Guarantor also issued a letter dated 04.07.2019 (annexed as "Annexure 3" in the IA), which bore the address as "Flat No.101, Venkataramana Residency, Near Kandukuri Veerashalingam Ashthika Kalasala, Y Junction, Rajahmundry, EG. District, A.P." (hereinafter referred to as the “Updated Address-2”).

(vii) In view of the above, the Financial Creditor also issued the Possession Notice dated 31.10.2019 under Section 13(4) of the SARFAESI to the Updated Address-2, which was duly served and acknowledged by the Personal Guarantor on 04.11.2019, as evidenced by the delivery report (annexed as Annexure 4 in the IA). Subsequently, the Financial Creditor issued the Form B Notice dated 02.05.2024 to the same updated address, which was duly served on the Personal Guarantor on 09.05.2024, as substantiated by the delivery report.

11. After careful consideration of the documents, we are of the considered view that in the interest of justice, the additional documents placed by the Financial Creditor in the IA 420/2025 are the necessary documents, and therefore needs to be taken on record for the proper adjudication of the matter. In view of the above, the additional documents annexed by the Financial Creditor in IA 420/2025 are taken on record. Accordingly, the IA (IBC)/420/2025 is hereby allowed and disposed of.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:

12. We have heard the submissions of Counsels for the Financial Creditor and RP also perused the RP Report and other records carefully.

13. The first issue for consideration before us is “Whether the notice dated 05.10.2017 invoking the personal guarantee has been duly served upon the Personal Guarantor”

(i) As per the Guarantee Agreement dated 13.02.2014 (Page 72 of the Petition), the notice to the Guarantor may be served personally or by prepaid post to the registered or last known address and a notice so sent shall be deemed served on the third day after posting. The relevant extract of the Guarantee Agreement is reproduced below:

(ii) The address of Personal Guarantor as mentioned in the Guarantee Agreement dated 13.02.2014 (Page 70 of the Petition) is reproduced below:

(iii) However, the Personal Guarantor mentioned the Updated Address-1 in a document submitted to the Financial Creditor, the relevant extract of which is reproduced below:

(iv) The Financial Creditor issued Recall Notice dated 05.10.2017 to the Personal Guarantor through Registered Post at the Updated Address-1. The relevant extracts of Recall Notice dated 05.10.2017 along with the postal acknowledgments are reproduced below:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (v) In view of the above, we are of the considered view that the notice invoking the personal guarantee has been duly served on the Personal Guarantor.

14. The next issue for consideration before us is “Whether the Petition is filed within the period of limitation?”

(i) In the present case, the loan account of the Corporate Debtor was classified as NPA on 31.08.2017.

(ii) The Financial Creditor issued Recall Notice through Registered Post dated 05.10.2017, requesting the Personal Guarantor to pay the amount due in not later than 7 days from the date of notice. The relevant extracts of Recall Notice dated 05.10.2017 are reproduced below:

(iii) Therefore, the cause of action arises on 12.10.2017 i.e. 7 days from the date of notice dated 05.10.2017 and the three years limitation period to file an application before the Adjudicating Authority would expire on 11.10.2020.

(iv) However, subsequently, due to continued non-payment, the Financial Creditor initiated recovery proceedings and issued a Notice dated

08.11.2017 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI and subsequently filed the OA No. 340/2018 before DRT, wherein the DRT passed the order on 23.09.2019 to issue the recovery certificate. The Recovery Certificate was issued on 06.01.2020 vide RC No.45 of 2020. The issue of Recovery Certificate before expiry of the limitation period would amount to fresh start of the limitation period from the date of Recovery Certificate resulting in extending the limitation period to 05.01.2023.

(v) Further, the Corporate Debtor gave an OTS offers to the Financial Creditor on 29.02.2020 and 30.11.2020. The relevant extract of OTS offer letter dated 30.11.2020 are reproduced below:

(vi) The above OTS offer would amount to acknowledgement of Debt by the Corporate Debtor, thereby extending the period of limitation to 29.11.2023.

(vii) Additionally, the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 stands excluded for the purpose of computation of limitation in view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Order in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020, in which it was inter alia directed as under:

“The period from March 15, 2020 till February 28, 2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or social laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. ln cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between March 15, 2020 till February 28, 2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from March 01, 2022.” (viii) In light of the above, 715 days (1 year, 11 months, and 13 days) are to be added to 29.11.2023 for the purpose of computing the limitation period. Accordingly, the limitation period expires on 13.11.2025.

(ix) Since the present Petition was filed on 30.12.2024, we are of the considered view that the present Petition has been filed well within the limitation period.

15. The next issue for consideration before us is “Whether the Personal Guarantor is liable to pay the dues by virtue of the Guarantee Agreement executed by her?”

(i) The common clauses of the Guarantee Agreement dated 13.02.2014 executed by the Personal Guarantor are as follows:

(a) As per the Guarantee Agreement dated 13.02.2014 (Page 70 of the Application), the Personal Guarantor agreed unconditionally and irrevocably to guarantee repayment of all existing and future loans and liabilities, the Financial Creditor advances or guarantees. The relevant extract of the Guarantee Agreement is reproduced below:

(b) As per the Guarantee Agreement dated 13.02.2014 (Page 70 of the Application), the Financial Creditor, at the guarantor’s request, agreed not to demand immediate repayment of existing dues from the borrower, and may continue to advance or renew financial facilities at its discretion without notifying the Personal Guarantor. In consideration of this, the Personal Guarantor undertook to guarantee payment of all amounts that may become due from the borrower to the Financial Creditor, subject to the terms and conditions set out in the agreement. The relevant extract of the Guarantee Agreement is reproduced below:

(c) As per the Guarantee Agreement dated 13.02.2014 (Page 71 of the Application), the guarantee will remain a continuing guarantee for the repayment of whatever final amount the borrower owes to the Financial Creditor, and the Guarantors are jointly and severally liable. The relevant extract of the Guarantee Agreement is reproduced below:

(d) As per the Guarantee Agreement dated 13.02.2014 (Page 71 & 72 of the Application), the Guarantor remains liable for the guaranteed debt notwithstanding any variation in terms of the Financial Creditor’s contract with the Borrower, any extension of time, release, composition, or omission by the Financial Creditor, or the Financial Creditor’s parting with any security and the Guarantor be treated as a principal debtor jointly with the Principal Borrower. The relevant extract of the Guarantee Agreement is reproduced below:

(e) As per the Guarantee Agreement dated 13.02.2014 (Page 72 &73 of the Application), the Guarantor authorizes the Principal Borrower to acknowledge liability on her behalf for the general balance due under this Agreement and agrees to be bound by every such acknowledgement. The relevant extract of Guarantee Agreement is reproduced below:

(ii) In view of the clauses of the Guarantee Agreement discussed above, we are of the considered view that the Personal Guarantor is liable by virtue of the Guarantee Agreement executed by her.

16. The next issue for consideration is “Whether the Demand Notice was duly served upon the Personal Guarantor demanding the outstanding amount beyond the threshold of Rs. One Crore due and payable under the Guarantee Agreement?”

(i) It is noted that the sale notice dated 31.10.2019 was issued by the Financial Creditor to the Personal Guarantor at the address “Plot No. 101, Venkata

Ramana Residency, Near Kandukuri Veereshalingam Asthika Kalasala, Y Junction, Rajahmundry, District East Godavari-533103”, which was duly received by her. The relevant extract of the above RPAD is reproduced below:

(ii) The Financial Creditor issued a Demand Notice dated 02.05.2024 for outstanding debt of Rs.494,29,54,852.74 in Form B at the above aforesaid address to the Personal Guarantor. The relevant extracts of the Demand Notice and postal Track Assignment are reproduced below:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (iii) In view of the above, we are of the considered view that the Demand Notice dated 02.05.2024 in Form B has been duly served upon the Personal Guarantor demanding the outstanding amount which is beyond the threshold of Rs. One Crore due and payable under the Guarantee Agreement.

17. While considering the Petition under Section 99(7) of IBC, we need to refer to the report/ recommendation of the RP. In the present case, the RP in his report filed under Section 99 of IBC has stated that the Petition filed by the Financial Creditor, Canara Bank is in compliance with section 95 of the Code and has recommended for acceptance of the present Petition for initiating PIRP against the Personal Guarantor.

18. In terms of the provisions of Section 100 of IBC, 2016, while considering the admission of Petition filed under Section 95(1) of IBC, 2016, this Adjudicating Authority needs to satisfy itself regarding the acceptability of the report filed under Section 99 of IBC, 2016. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that this Petition needs to be admitted. Therefore, CP (IB)/5/95/AMR/2025 is admitted.

19. As a sequel of admission of the present Petition, the interim moratorium, which had kicked in as per Section 96 of the IBC shall cease and a fresh moratorium will begin in terms of Section 101 of the IBC in relation to all the debts of the Personal Guarantor. During the moratorium period – (a) any pending legal action or proceedings in respect of any debt qua the Personal Guarantor shall be deemed to have been stayed; (b) the Creditors shall not initiate any legal action or legal proceedings in respect of any debt qua the Personal Guarantor; and (c) the Personal Guarantor shall not transfer, alienate, encumber or dispose of any of the assets or his legal right or beneficiary interest therein. The moratorium shall cease to have effect at the end of a period of 180 days.

20. The public notice as envisaged under Section 102 of the IBC shall be issued by the RP, on behalf of the Adjudicating Authority, within seven days of passing of this Order, inviting claim from all creditors within 21 days of such notice. The notice shall include details of the present Order, particulars of the RP with whom the claims have to be registered and the last date for the submission of the claims. The notice shall be – (a) published in English and one Vernacular Language newspaper, which are in circulation in the State, where the Personal Guarantor resides as well as where the registered office of the Corporate Debtor is situated; (b) affixed in the premises of this Adjudicating Authority; and (c) placed on the website of the Adjudicating Authority.

21. The RP in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 104 shall prepare a list of creditors within 30 days from the date of the notice as provided under Section 105, the debtor shall, in consultation with the RP, prepare a repayment plan containing a proposal to the creditors for restructuring of his debts or affairs, which besides other things, shall also include the provisions for payment of fee to the RP. The RP shall submit the repayment plan along with his report on the plan to this Adjudicating Authority within a period of 21 days from the last date of submission of claims, as provided under Section 106 of the IBC.

22. In case the RP recommends that a meeting of the creditors is not required to be summoned, he shall record the reasons thereof. If the RP is of the opinion that the meeting of the creditors should be summoned, he shall specify the details as provided under Section 106(3). The date of meeting should not be less than 14 days or more than 28 days from the date of submission of the report under Sub-Section (1) of Section

106, for which at least 14 days’ notice to the Creditors (as per list prepared) shall be issued by all modes. Such notice must contain the details as provided under the provisions of Section 107 of the IBC.

23. The meeting of the creditors shall be conducted in accordance with Sections 108, 109, 110 and 111 of IBC, 2016. The RP shall prepare a report of the meeting of the Creditors on repayment plan with all details as provided under Section 112 and submit the same to this Adjudicating Authority, copies of which shall be provided to the Debtor and all the Creditors. It is made clear that the RP shall perform his functions and duties in compliance with the code of conduct provided under Section 208 of the IBC, 2016.

24. A copy of this Order along with a copy of the Petition and RP Report shall be provided to the Financial Creditor, Personal Guarantor and IBBI by the Registry/ Court Master within 7 days from today by email.

25. It goes without saying that whatever amount is paid to the Financial Creditor by the Principal Borrower (Corporate Debtor) and other guarantors, the same would be deducted from the liability of the Personal Guarantor to repay.

26. To come up for consideration of Status Report to be filed by RP, within eight weeks.

Sd/- Sd/- (Umesh Kumar Shukla) (Kishore Vemulapalli) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)

Anusha