Mr. Mohan Lal Goyal vs Punjab National Bank & Anr. & Ors

[Arising out of Order dated 03.12.2025 passed by the Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Allahabad Bench, Prayagraj in CP IB 24/ALD/2025]

IN THE MATTER OF: MR. MOHAN LAL GOYAL R/0. 28/SADHNA ENCLAVE, NEW DELHI ...Appellant

Versus

1. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK DWARKA SECTOR 10, NEW DELHI-110001.

2. MS. BABITA JAIN (Resolution Professional) of Personal Guarantor 35-B/6 Madhokunj, Ram Mohan Plaza, Allahabad, 211002 ...Respondents

Present: For Appellant: Mr. Abhijeet Sinha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amit Dhall, Advocate. For Respondents: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gautam, Mr. Anant Gautam, Ms. Deepanjali Chaudhary, Mr. Rishi Chauhan, Mr. Arman Gahlot, Mr. Srijan Mehrotra Advocates.

ORDER

Ashok Bhushan, J.

This appeal by a Suspended Director of the Corporate Debtor has

been filed challenging the order dated 03.12.2025 passed by the

Cont'd.../ 2

Adjudicating Authority (National Company Law Tribunal), Allahabad Bench,

Prayagraj in CP IB 24/ALD/2025. The application filed by the Punjab

National Bank under Section 7 of the I&B Code has been admitted by the

impugned order by appointing the Interim Resolution Professional and

declaring moratorium.

2. Brief facts of the case giving rise to the appeal are:

2.1 The Punjab National Bank extended credit facilities including cash

credit and working capital term loans which facilities were extended

from time to time.

2.2 The Corporate Debtor together with Guarantor and Mortgager

executed various security documents.

2.3 On account of default being committed by the Corporate Debtor, the

account of Corporate Debtor classified as NPA on 08.06.2023.

2.4 A Recall Notice dated 04.01.2024 was issued to the Corporate Debtor.

The Financial Creditor has also initiated proceeding under Debts

Recovery Tribunal, Allahabad by filing OA No.296 of 2024.

2.5 Application under Section 7 was filed by the Financial Creditor

claiming default of Rs.74,35,42,374/- as on 30.11.2024. Date of

default as per NeSL data was mentioned as 08.06.2023.

2.6 Reply was filed to the Section 7 application by the Corporate Debtor.

The Adjudicating Authority after hearing the parties, by impugned

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos.2012 of 2025 3

order has admitted the Section 7 application. Aggrieved by which

order this appeal has been filed.

3. In the appeal, the Appellant filed an Additional Affidavit on

22.12.2025 and 03.01.2026 stating that Appellant is making all

considerable efforts to settle the dispute with the Financial Creditor. Along

with the Affidavit filed on 03.01.2026, copy of proposal dated 30.12.2025

was placed on record where OTS was submitted for an amount of Rs.29

Crores with the schedule of payments indicated in the letter. On

05.01.2026, learned counsel for the Bank had submitted that OTS proposal

received from the Appellant has not been accepted, which has been

communicated to the Appellant.

4. Learned counsel for the Appellant challenging the order submits that

the date of default mentioned in the Section 7 application was not correct

date and date of NPA cannot be taken as date of default. Application was

also filed after expiry of the limitation period. Debt and default has not been

proved by the Financial Creditor before the Adjudicating Authority.

5. Learned counsel for the Bank refuting the submissions of learned

counsel for the Appellant submits that application was filed within the

period of limitation. In the application under Section 7 date of default was

rightly mentioned as 08.06.2023 which date was also reflected in the NeSL

record. Appellant was sanctioned facilities of Rs.66 Crores vide various

sanction orders and default was committed. The Adjudicating Authority has

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos.2012 of 2025 4

considered the issue of limitation and has rightly come to the conclusion

that date of default being 08.06.2023, application which has been filed on

15.01.2025 was well within time.

6. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties

and perused the record.

7. The fact that the Corporate Debtor is in default is clearly proved by

various offers of the OTS as relied by the Appellant in this appeal. As noted

above, Appellant even after passing of the order dated 03.12.2025 have

submitted OTS proposal on 30.12.2025, which has not been accepted by the

Bank. Prior to aforesaid OTS proposal, the Corporate Debtor has earlier

also submitted several OTS proposals which are detailed in the affidavit

which were not accepted by the Bank. Submission of OTS proposal is clear

proof of default by the Corporate Debtor.

8. The Adjudicating Authority has framed question, "Whether there is

debt and default within the meaning of the IBC, 2016?" and has dealt the

said aspect and has come to the conclusion that outstanding debt is more

than Rs.1 Crore. The Adjudicating Authority has also referred to NeSL

record, where default of Corporate Debtor is recorded. The claim of the

Corporate Debtor is that it deposited huge amount before the Financial

Creditor but no statement of account or reconciliation has been produced.

The Adjudicating Authority has rightly placed reliance on the judgment of

Hon'ble Supreme Court in "M. Suresh Kumar Reddy v. Canara Bank,

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos.2012 of 2025 5

(2023) 8 SCC 387" that once the Tribunal is satisfied that an outstanding

debt exists and a default has occurred, the Adjudicating Authority had to

admit the Section 7 application. We, thus, are of the view that no grounds

have been made out in this appeal to interfere with the impugned order.

Appeal is dismissed.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical)

NEW DELHI

06th February, 2026

Archana

Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) Nos.2012 of 2025