Omkara Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd vs Darshna Tarun Jain
- CitationComp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 670 of 2025
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Adjudicating Authority, in proceeding to consider a petition under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code without first calling for the Resolution Professional's report under Section 99, acted contrary to the statutory scheme governing proceedings against personal guarantors, and its dismissal of the petition on limitation grounds cannot stand in that posture. Such an order is to be set aside and the matter remanded, with a direction that the Adjudicating Authority proceed strictly in accordance with the scheme of the Code and the ratio of the authorities cited, while the personal guarantor retains the right to defend the proceedings and all issues, including limitation, are left open for determination on remand.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Omkara Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant(s)
Versus
Darshana Tarun Jain ...Respondent(s) Present: For Appellant : Mr. Mohit D. Ram, Ms. Nayan Gupta, Mr. Parth Saluja, Advocate For Respondent :
With
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 672 of 2025
IN THE MATTER OF:
Omkara Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant(s)
Versus
Tarun Kailashchand Jain ...Respondent(s) Present: For Appellant : Mr. Mohit D. Ram, Ms. Nayan Gupta, Mr. Parth Saluja, Advocate For Respondent :
With
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 673 of 2025
IN THE MATTER OF:
Omkara Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant(s)
Versus
Smt. Munnidevi Kailashchand Jain ...Respondent(s) Present: For Appellant : Mr. Mohit D. Ram, Ms. Nayan Gupta, Mr. Parth Saluja, Advocate For Respondent :
1|4 With
Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 674 of 2025
IN THE MATTER OF:
Omkara Assets Reconstruction Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant(s)
Versus
Smt. Kirandevi Agarwal ...Respondent(s) Present: For Appellant : Mr. Mohit D. Ram, Ms. Nayan Gupta, Mr. Parth Saluja, Advocate For Respondent :
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode) 31.10.2025: These appeals arise out of the separate orders of the
Adjudicating Authority, all dated 08.04.2025 dismissing the petitions taken
out by the appellant under Section 95 IBC against four personal guarantors
of the CD. The details are as follows;
Appeal no. CP No. Name of respondent
Comp. App. CP (IB) Darshna Tarun Jain (AT) (Ins) No. No.149 of 670 of 2025 2025
Comp. App. CP (IB) Tarun Kailashchand (AT) (Ins) No. No.153 of Jain 672 of 2025 2025 Comp. App. CP (IB) Smt. Munnidevi (AT) (Ins) No. No.154 of Kailashchand Jain 673 of 2025 2025 Comp. App. CP (IB) Smt. Kirandevi Agarwal (AT) (Ins) No. No.151 of 674 of 2025 2025
2. The ground on which the Adjudicating Authority chose to dismiss this
appeal are that they are barred by limitation.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that after filing the
petitions under Sec. 95 IBC, the adjudicating authority had not even called
for the report of RP under Sec. 99 but proceeded to exercise its jurisdiction
2|4 under Sec 100, which is contrary to the scheme of IBC vis-à-vis proceedings
against personal guarantor/ and something which is not judicially
approved. The reliance was placed only on the ratio in
Bank of Baroda Vs Farooq Ali Khan & others. [2025 SCC Online
SC 374], Central Bank of India vs Deepen Arun Parekh [2024 SCC
Online NCLAT 1309], Archana Deepak Wani vs Indian Bank &
Another [2023 SCC Online NCLAT 192], Pooja Ramesh Singh vs SBI
& Others [2023 SCC Online NCLAT 19], Asha Basantilal Surana vs
SBI & Others [2025 SCC Online NCLAT 920], Mavjibhai Nagarbhai
Patel vs SBI & Another [2024 SCC Online NCLAT 2014], Dena Bank
vs Shiva Kumar Reddy & Another [(2021) 10 SCC 330], Tejas
Khandar vs Bank of Baroda [2022 SCC Online NCLAT 3927] &
State Bank of India vs Gourishankar & Another [2025 SCC Online
NCLAT 62]
4. Heard the learned counsel for the respondent. This Tribunal is
satisfied that the approach adopted by the Adjudicating Authority may not
be correct in the light of the ratio of the judgments in the case listed above.
Necessarily all these appeals are required to be allowed.
5. Accordingly, this Tribunal sets aside the order of the Adjudicating
Authority dated 08.04.2025 in CP (IB) No.149 of 2025, CP (IB) No.153 of 2025,
CP (IB) No.154 of 2025 & CP (IB) No.151 of 2025 and remands the matter back
to the Adjudicating Authority with a direction to proceed strictly in
accordance with the scheme of IBC and consistent with the ratio of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Tribunal in the cases listed above. The
respondent in each of these cases/ the personal guarantors, against whom
the appellant intends to proceed, will have the right to defend the action
3|4 independently before the Adjudicating Authority, (all issues are kept open
for a delay over consideration of both the parties) No costs.
[Justice N Seshasayee] Member (Judicial)
[Indevar Pandey] Member (Technical) TU/SK
4|4
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