In the matter of Equentia Financial Service Pvt. Ltd. vs. Saloni Ayush Aggarwal,

AND IN THE MATTER OF IA NO. 638/ND/2026: Mr. Loveneet Handa RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL IP REGISTRATION NUMBER: IBBI/IPA-002/ IP-N01048/20202021/13386 REGD. AND COMMUNICATION ADDRESS: 201, SECOND FLOOR, PARK VIEW COMPLEX, PLOT NO. 48 HASANPUR, I.P. * EXTENSION, DELHI-110092 … Applicant Versus Ms. Saloni Ayush Aggarwal PERSONAL GUARANTOR OF PRAFFUL OVERSEAS PRIVATE LIMITED ADDRESS- 401-501, DHARAM PALACE-2, PARLE POINT, SURAT-395007, GUJARAT … Respondent Under Section: 95(1) of IBC, 2016 Order delivered on 31.08.2026 CORAM: SH. ASHOK KUMAR BHARDWAJ SH. ATUL CHATURVEDI HON’BLE MEMBER (J) HON’BLE MEMBER (T) PRESENT: For the Financial : Adv. Harshvardhan Jha, Adv. Shruti Sharma, Adv. Creditor Aman Pathak

IA-638/ND/2026 in CP (IB)-652/ND/2025 Equentia Financial Service Pvt. Ltd v. Saloni Ayush Aggarwal

For the Respondent : Adv. Rahul Gupta, Adv. Rahul Dadhich, Adv. Garima Malhotra For the RP : Adv. Ashutosh Gupta and Adv. Ajitesh Kumar Hearing Through: VC and Physical (Hybrid) Mode ORAL ORDER

IA-798/ND/2026, IA-638/ND/2026, IA-972/ND/2026: The Personal Guarantors in all three applications, viz. Ms. Sangeeta Aggarwal, Ms. Saloni Ayush Aggarwal and Mr. Sri Narayan Aggarwal stood as Personal Guarantors qua the same financial facility extended by the Creditor, namely, Equentia Financial Services to Prafful Overseas Private Limited. The RP has given details of the financial debt and the personal guarantees in paras 3 to 11 of the application, viz. IA-798/ND/2026, which read thus:-

IA-638/ND/2026 in CP (IB)-652/ND/2025 Equentia Financial Service Pvt. Ltd v. Saloni Ayush Aggarwal

IA-638/ND/2026 in CP (IB)-652/ND/2025 Equentia Financial Service Pvt. Ltd v. Saloni Ayush Aggarwal

1. It is worth taking note of the fact that the contents of all three applications are pari materia. The Applicant/RP has espoused compliance with Section 95(4) of the Code. The relevant excerpt of the report/application reads thus:-

IA-638/ND/2026 in CP (IB)-652/ND/2025 Equentia Financial Service Pvt. Ltd v. Saloni Ayush Aggarwal

IA-638/ND/2026 in CP (IB)-652/ND/2025 Equentia Financial Service Pvt. Ltd v. Saloni Ayush Aggarwal

2. The Applicant has also indicated the satisfaction of the requirements of Section 99(2) of the Code. The relevant excerpts of the application read thus:-

IA-638/ND/2026 in CP (IB)-652/ND/2025 Equentia Financial Service Pvt. Ltd v. Saloni Ayush Aggarwal

3. The RP has made a recommendation for admitting the application. The recommendation reads thus:-

4. Mr. Rahul Gupta, Ld. Counsel for the Personal Guarantors in all the three applications could rely upon the judgment of the Hon’ble NCLAT in Sushant Chhabra versus Catalyst Trusteeship Ltd. & Anr. (Comp. Appeal AT (insolvency) No. 443/2026) to espouse that since as on the date of filing of IA 798/ND/2026 and IA-972/ND/2026, the PIRP initiated qua them by Canara Bank was pending before the Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal, the present application would be hit by Section 96 of the Code. He relied upon paras 23 and 24 of the judgment, which reads thus:- 23. From the facts noted above, it is clear that although on the date when the Section 95 application was filed by the Catalyst Trusteeship Ltd. against the Appellant herein on 05.08.2025, interim moratorium was already operating in the Section 95 application filed by Canara Bank against the Appellant. The judgment referred to above clearly prohibits any such institution. The distinguishing feature, which the Respondent is contending herein, is that even though the application was filed by Canara Bank prior in time and the IA-638/ND/2026 in CP (IB)-652/ND/2025 Equentia Financial Service Pvt. Ltd v. Saloni Ayush Aggarwal moratorium had been triggered, the application having been withdrawn on 10.11.2025, there was no inhibition in admitting the Section 95 application filed by the Financial Creditor against the Appellants herein.

The real question to be considered and answered is whether, due to withdrawal of the Section 95 application by Canara Bank, the prohibition which was triggered due to interim moratorium shall come to an end. When the application under Section 95 filed by Canara Bank was withdrawn on 10.11.2025, admittedly the moratorium came to an end, and there was no prohibition and the interim moratorium no longer existed, but what is the consequence of withdrawal of the Section 95 application on 10.11.2025 on the moratorium, which was in operation on 05.08.2025, when the Section 95 application filed by Catalyst Trusteeship Ltd. against the Appellants. 24. The statutory moratorium, which was triggered on 12.01.2025, continued to operate till 10.11.2025 when the application filed by Canara Bank was withdrawn. Section 101 of the IBC provides that when application under Section 100 is admitted, a moratorium shall commence, which shall cease to have effect at the end of period of 180 days. Thus, moratorium comes to an end on the day when application is admitted or rejected. The interim moratorium which commences on filing an application, is a statutory moratorium provided by enactment.

During the interim moratorium various actions are prohibited as enumerated in Section 96, sub-section (1). The statutory interim moratorium which triggered in Section 96, shall come to an end only when application under Section 95 is either rejected or admitted. The interim moratorium in Section 96 has statutory consequences, which interim moratorium

IA-638/ND/2026 in CP (IB)-652/ND/2025 Equentia Financial Service Pvt. Ltd v. Saloni Ayush Aggarwal although shall come to an end when application is either dismissed or admitted or withdrawn, but during the period when interim moratorium is operating, any initiation of proceeding shall be non-est in law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. in Paragraph-6 has clearly held that after enforcement of moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC, any arbitration proceeding initiated is non-est in law. Thus, the proceeding, which was initiated by Financial Creditor during the currency of interim moratorium, were non-est from the very beginning, cannot become legal proceeding after interim moratorium is withdrawn on 10.11.2025. Personal Guarantors before the Adjudicating Authority has raised the issue that application is not maintainable. In the reply filed to Section 95 application, the Personal Guarantors has relied on Section 95 application filed by the Canara Bank. The Adjudicating Authority observed that Personal Guarantors has not filed reply to the report under Section 99, and they have only filed reply to Section 95 application. When the Personal Guarantors has raised objection to the application and has pointed out that earlier application under Section 95 by the Canara Bank has already been filed, which was noticed by Adjudicating Authority to be withdrawn on 10.11.2025, the Adjudicating Authority committed error in not considering the effect and consequences of triggering of interim moratorium on filing of the application by the Canara Bank and the effect of the said moratorium on the application filed by Catalyst Trusteeship Ltd. on 05.08.2025. We, thus, are of the view that order of the Adjudicating Authority admitting Section 95 application cannot be sustained.

IA-638/ND/2026 in CP (IB)-652/ND/2025 Equentia Financial Service Pvt. Ltd v. Saloni Ayush Aggarwal

5. As can be seen from IBC (Amendment) Act, 2026, by way of the provisions contained in Section 51 thereof, the provisions of Section 96 of the Original Act are amended and it is made clear that the provision of Section 96 would not apply where an application is filed for initiating insolvency resolution process in respect of a personal guarantor to a corporate debtor. The provisions of Section 51 read thus:- 51. In section 96 of the principal Act, after sub-section (3), the following sub-section shall be inserted, namely:– “(4) The provisions of this section shall not apply where an application is filed for initiating an insolvency resolution process in respect of a personal guarantor to a corporate debtor.” 6. In terms of the judgment dated 24.07.2026 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd. V. Neel Motors LLP and Ors. ibclaw.in 4165, the Hon’ble High Court could ruled that the amendment would apply retroactively. The relevant excerpts of the judgment read thus:- 14. A plain reading of the foregoing would make it clear that the term "retroactive", while being used differently in different judgments, is actually a prospective application of a newly introduced requirement of a law to facts existing as of the date of the introduction of the requirement. The mere reason that some facts may have already been into existence but continue to exist would not mean that the application becomes retrospective. 15. Applying the same principles to Section 96(4) of the IBC, in my opinion, a moratorium insofar as it operated in respect of Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 until May 25, 2026 ceased to operate with effect from May 26, 2026, in respect of applications filed under Section 95 of the IBC. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, the Petition would need to be considered as not being barred by the moratorium under the IBC. 16. I am conscious that IBC proceedings were initiated by none other than the Petitioner and it is nobody's case that the Respondent had exploited any perverse incentive to use the automatic moratorium under Section 96 to frustrate the IA-638/ND/2026 in CP (IB)-652/ND/2025 Equentia Financial Service Pvt. Ltd v. Saloni Ayush Aggarwal

Petitioner's recovery proceedings. However, the provisions of Section 96, as amended, are agnostic to the person at whose behest the application under Section 95 of the IBC was filed.

7. In view of the aforementioned judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court, we are constrained to take a view that the IA-798/ND/2026 and IA- 972/ND/2026 would not be hit by moratorium. In the totality of the facts, we are left with no option but to allow the IA-798/ND/2026, IA- 638/ND/2026 and IA-972/ND/2026 and admit the CP (IB)- 651/ND/2025, CP (IB)-652/ND/2025 and CP (IB)-653/ND/2025, ordered accordingly. 8. It goes without saying that during the Insolvency Resolution Process, the RP shall give an opportunity to the Personal Guarantor to submit his repayment plan. Nevertheless, before that, the RP shall also carry out the exercise in terms of the provisions of Section 100(2) of IBC 2016. For such purpose, it would be open to the Respondent to appear before the RP within one week from today. 9. There is no request by the RP for the purpose of conducting negotiations between the debtor and the creditor. As a sequel to the admission of the present application, a moratorium shall commence in relation to all the debts of the Respondent. During the moratorium period – (a) any pending legal action or proceedings in respect of any debt qua the Respondent 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 Respondent; and (c) the debtors 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 the period of 180 days. 10. A public notice shall be issued by the RP within seven days of passing of this order, inviting claims from all creditors within 21 days of such notice. The notice shall include details of the present order, particulars of the Resolution Professional 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 two National Newspapers, one in English and the other in a IA-638/ND/2026 in CP (IB)-652/ND/2025 Equentia Financial Service Pvt. Ltd v. Saloni Ayush Aggarwal

Vernacular Language, in circulation in the State where the debtor resides; (b) affixed in the premises of this Adjudicating Authority; and (c) placed on the website of the Adjudicating Authority. 11. We are sanguine that the RP shall discharge all such duties as are incumbent upon him in terms of the provisions of Sections 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 112 and 113 of IBC, 2016, with the due deference of the procedure enshrined in Regulations 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 17 of IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantor to Corporate Debtors) Regulations, 2019 and also in terms of the other extent provisions of the aforementioned code/ regulations and/or any other provisions of law applicable to him, in discharge of his duties as RP. 12. A copy of this order, along with the copy of the application as also the report of the Resolution Professional, shall be provided to the Creditor (Applicant), Personal Guarantor (Respondent) and IBBI, by the Registry/Court Master within 7 days from today by email. 13. The IA-798/ND/2026, IA-638/ND/2026 and IA-972/ND/2026 and admit the CP (IB)-651/ND/2025, CP (IB)-652/ND/2025 and CP (IB)- 653/ND/2025 respectively stand admitted. To come up for consideration of the Status Report to be filed by the RP within 8 weeks. 14. It goes without saying that whatever amount is paid to the creditor by the Principal Borrower (Corporate Debtor) and other guarantors would be deducted from the liability of the Respondent to repay.

Sd/- Sd/-Sd/- (ATUL CHAT URVEDI) (ASHOK KUMAR BHARDWAJ) MEMBER (T) MEMBER (J) Abhijat/Vishal

IA-638/ND/2026 in CP (IB)-652/ND/2025 Equentia Financial Service Pvt. Ltd v. Saloni Ayush Aggarwal