Miss Lucy
← All judgments

In the matter of State Bank of India vs. Rajesh Meena,

National Company Law Tribunal8 April 2026

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The date on which a default occurs for the purposes of a personal guarantor's insolvency application is the date on which the guarantor, upon invocation of the guarantee, is called upon to pay and fails to do so, where the invocation letter itself makes the guarantor liable on demand and simultaneously demands payment of the outstanding amount; a period of grace not stated in that letter cannot be read into it, and the date stated in the application as the date of default may accordingly be corrected to the date of invocation.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNALNEW DELHI, COURT-III

IA-5955/2024 IN IB-575(ND)/2021 IN THE MATTER OF IB-575(ND)/2021: (Under section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 read with rule 7(2) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority for Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtors) Rules, 2019) M/s. STATE BANK OF INDIA Through the Resolution Professional Smt. Reshma Mittal IBBI Reg no.: IBBI/IPA-001 /IP-P00297/2017-18/10541 … APPLICANT/FINANCIAL CREDITOR VERSUS MR. RAJESH MEENA (Personal Guarantor of the Corporate Debtor – Gallium Industries Limited) C/o Shri Manish Sharma (Advocate) 1A-129, IInd Floor, NIT, Faridabad - 121001 … RESPONDENT/ PERSONAL GUARANTOR AND IN THE MATTER OF IA-5955(ND)/2024: (Under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, read with Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016) M/s. STATE BANK OF INDIA Through Manoj Kumar Saxena (Asst. General Manager) Stressed Assets Management Branch-II, 11th Floor, Jawahar Vyapar Bhawan, 1, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi – 110001 … APPLICANT/FINANCIAL CREDITOR VERSUS MR. RAJESH MEENA C/o Shri Manish Sharma (Advocate) 1A-129, IInd Floor, NIT, Faridabad - 121001 … RESPONDENT IA-5955/2024 In IB-575(ND)/2021 D ate of Order: 08.04.2026

Order Pronounced On: 08.04.2026

CORAM:

SHRI BACHU VENKAT BALARAM DAS, HON’BLE ACTING PRESIDENT

SHRI RAVINDRA CHATURVEDI, HON’BLE MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

PRESENT: For the Applicant : Mr. Ankit Singal, Ms. Prerna Prajapati, Ms. Kriti Bhatia, Advs. For the Respondent : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Ms. Preeti Kashyap, Mr. Ankit Sharma, Mr. Pulkit Mehrotra, Advs. For the Resolution : Mr. Harmeet Kaur in person. Professional ORDER

1. The present IA-5955/2024 has been filed by State Bank of India through Manoj Kumar Saxena (Asst. General Manager) under Section 60(5) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, read with Rule 11 of the National Company Law Tribunal Rules, 2016, seeking the following prayers:

“a. Allow the present application and correct / amend the 'Date on which default occurred' as "15.02.2018 - date of invocation of guarantee"; and b. Pass any such other orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

BACKGROUND

2. The main application IB-575/ND/2021 is filed under section 95(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Rule 7(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority for Personal Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtors), Rules 2019 against Mr. Rajesh Meena, the Personal IA-5955/2024 In IB-575(ND)/2021

Guarantor to the Corporate Debtor (Gallium Industries Limited) for an aggregate debt amount of Rs. 62,47,09,491.02/-(Rupees Sixty Two Crores Forty Seven Lacs Nine Thousand four Hundred and Ninety one Rupees and Two Paise only) including interest and Penal interest as due and payable to State Bank of India as on 31.05.2021 with respect to various loan facilities sanctioned to the Corporate Debtor (Gallium Industries Limited) by the State Bank of India, through the Resolution Professional Smt. Reshma Mittal.

3. The Applicant issued Demand Notice dated 29.06.2021 under Rule 7(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority for Insolvency Resolution Process of Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtors) Rules, 2019 to Mr. Rajesh Meena mentioning the the total outstanding debt (including interest and Penalties) as Rs. 62,47,09,491.02/- (Rupees Sixty Two Crores Forty Seven Lacs Nine Thousand four Hundred and Ninety one Rupees and Two Paise only).

4. The Applicant, as per the Part III of the Section 7 application, has furnished a total debt of ₹62,47,09,491.02/- as on 31.05.2021 (including interest and penalties) and an amount in default of ₹44,66,94,317.74/- as on 30.11.2016, as reflected in the demand notice dated 01.12.2016 issued under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, along with corrigendum dated 06.02.2017, together with applicable future interest, penal interest and charges on an actual basis.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPLICANT

5. It is the case of the Applicant that in the main matter, IB-575/ND/2021, in Part III, the Applicant has mentioned the following dates on which default has occurred, which are extracted below:

IA-5955/2024 In IB-575(ND)/2021

6. It has been submitted by the Applicant that due to an inadvertent error, the date on which the default occurred has been incorrectly mentioned in serial No.4 of Part III of IB-575/ND/2021.

IA-5955/2024 In IB-575(ND)/2021

7. It has been submitted by the Applicant that, as per the Guarantee deed dated 23.02.2015, on demand, the Respondent is liable to pay the amount due. The Notice dated 01.12.2016 and Corrigendum dated 06.02.2017 were issued to the Corporate Debtor. Thereafter, on 22.03.2017, the Corporate Debtor made certain payments with respect to the debt in question. Further, it has also been submitted by the Applicant that as per the Invocation of guarantee notice dated 15.02.2018, the Respondent/Personal Guarantor was asked to forthwith pay the amount due but he has failed to do so and defaulted in making the payment. Hence, the ‘Date on which default occurred’ is 15.02.2018, i.e., the date of invocation of the guarantee.

8. It has been submitted by the Applicant that mere technicality should not defeat the ends of substantive justice, and amendment ought to be allowed if it is necessary to determine the real question in controversy and amendment can be done to substantiate or expand pre-existing facts or add to facts already on record, and ought not to be refused due to some mistake or inadvertence.

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:

9. The Applicant is seeking to amend the date on which default occurred on the ground of inadvertent error, and the correct date on which default occurred is 15.02.2018, i.e., the date on which the guarantee was invoked.

10. On perusal of the application, it is clear that in part III of IB- 575/ND/2021 at serial no. 4, which speaks of particulars of the date on which the default occurred, the Applicant has mentioned three different dates, being:

a. 07.04.2017 (Sixty days from the date of Corrigendum dated 06.02.20217, sent subsequent to issuance of notice u/s 13(2) under the SARFAESI Act, on 01.12.2016.

IA-5955/2024 In IB-575(ND)/2021 b. 22.02.2018 (Seven days from the date of the Invocation of Guarantee notice issued on 15.02.2018)

c. On 29.06.2021, when a demand notice in terms of the requirement of Rule 7(1) of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy (Application to adjudication Authority for Insolvency resolution process of personal guarantors to corporate debtors) Rules, 2019 was sent to the respondent/personal guarantor.

11. The Applicant in the present Application has prayed that “15.02.2018” is to be treated as the date on which default has occurred. The guarantee was invoked vide Letter No. SAMB II/CLO-I/SLM/2017- 2018/974,976,975 dated 15.02.2018. The relevant paragraphs of the said letter is reproduced hereunder:

12. A plain reading of paragraphs 4 and 5 of Letter No. SAMB II/CLO- I/SLM/2017-2018/974, 976, 975 dated 15.02.2018 demonstrates that the Guarantor was liable to make payment on demand and that the Applicant invoked the guarantee on 15.02.2018 while simultaneously

IA-5955/2024 In IB-575(ND)/2021 demanding payment of the outstanding amount, which date has also been disclosed in Part III of Application bearing IB-575/ND/2021. Although serial no. 4 of the Application reflects 22.02.2018 as the date of default, ostensibly upon considering a period of 7 days, the said period does not find mention in the contents of the aforesaid letter. Accordingly, it is reasonable to construe that the date of default is the date of invocation of the guarantee itself, i.e., 15.02.2018.

ORDER

13. In view of the above facts and circumstances and the foregoing discussion, we find force in the submissions and the argument advanced by the Applicant.

14. The prayer(s) sought in the present application is hereby allowed.

15. Accordingly, IA-5955/2024 in IB-575(ND)/2021 shall stand disposed of.

Sd/- Sd/- (RAVINDRA CHATURVEDI) (BACHU VENKAT BALARAM DAS) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) HON’BLE ACTING PRESIDENT

IA-5955/2024 In IB-575(ND)/2021

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free