Pawan Kumar Trilokchand Agarwal vs Pankaj Prabhudayal Goenka Rp Of ...

IN THE MATTER OF: Zameer Pawan Kumar Agarwal ...Appellant(s)

Versus Pankaj Prabhudayal Goenka, RP of Personal Guarantor & Ors. ...Respondent(s)

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Manu Aggarwal, Ms. Ishita Pandey, Mr. Kunal Vaishanav, Mr. Ritesh Patadia and Mr. Shivang Singhal, Advocates.

For Respondents : Mr. Sougat Sinha and Ms. Gayathri Hanasa, Advocates. With Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1120 of 2025 & I.A. No. 4375 of 2025

IN THE MATTER OF: Rosy Pawan Kumar Agarwal ...Appellant(s)

Versus Pankaj Prabhudayal Goenka, RP of Personal Guarantor & Ors. ...Respondent(s)

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Manu Aggarwal, Ms. Ishita Pandey, Mr. Kunal Vaishanav, Mr. Ritesh Patadia and Mr. Shivang Singhal, Advocates.

For Respondents : Mr. Sougat Sinha and Ms. Gayathri Hanasa, Advocates.

With Comp. App. (AT) (Ins) No. 1121 of 2025 & I.A. No. 4377 of 2025

IN THE MATTER OF: Pawan Kumar Trilokchand Agarwal ...Appellant(s) Versus Pankaj Prabhudayal Goenka, RP of Personal Guarantor & Ors. ...Respondent(s)

Present: For Appellant : Mr. Manu Aggarwal, Ms. Ishita Pandey, Mr. Kunal Vaishanav, Mr. Ritesh Patadia and Mr. Shivang Singhal, Advocates.

For Respondents : Mr. Sougat Sinha and Ms. Gayathri Hanasa, Advocates.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode)

01.12.2025 Heard Ld. Counsel for the Appellant and the Respondent.

These appeals have been filed against the order dated 16.05.2025 by

which Section 94 application filed by the Appellant has been dismissed as

barred by time.

Brief facts necessary for deciding the appeals are: the Appellants are

Personal Guarantor to the Corporate Debtor namely the "Roselabs Bioscience

Limited", various financial facilities were extended to the CD to which the

Appellants stood as Personal Guarantors. There was default by CD. Financial

Creditor issued the demand notice under Section 13(2) and thereafter filed an

application under Section 19 of the Debt Recovery Act, 1993 and the Debt

Recovery Tribunal allowed the application in O.A. No. 437 of 2025 on

12.06.2017, recovery certificate was also issued. The Appellant filed Section

94 application on 14.03.2023.

In the application Resolution Professional was appointed who

recommended for admission of Section 94 application. The Personal

2 of 5 Guarantor (Appellant) also filed an affidavit opposing the application.

Adjudicating Authority heard the parties, by the impugned order it held that

application having been filed beyond the Limitation is to be rejected.

Ld. Counsel for the Appellant challenging the order submits that the

Appellant has given a settlement proposal to Bank of Baroda on 23.02.2022,

hence the application filed on 14.03.2023 cannot be barred by Limitation. He

further submitted that after recovery certificate which was issued on

12.06.2017, three years period expired during the period under Section 10A,

hence the Appellant shall also be entitled to benefit of the order of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition 3 of 2020.

Ld. Counsel for the Bank refuting the submission submits that the

application was barred by time the cause of action to the Appellant to pray for

its resolution under Section 94 arose when demand notice was issued in 2015

and when recovery certificate was issued on 12.06.2017. Within three years

period, the Appellant did not initiate the proceedings, he further submits that

even after giving the benefit of period from 25.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 the

application is still barred by time. He submits that the OTS given by Bank of

Baroda shall not give an extension of Limitation under Section 18 of the

Limitation Act to the Appellant.

We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the

record.

Ld. Counsel for the Respondent submitted that infact the demand

notice was issued on 24.08.2015.

3 of 5 It is true that the Appellant defaulted in re-payment when the demand

notice was issued in the year of 2015 by the Financial Institution, however,

even accepting the case of the Appellant that he will have further 3 years

period after the recovery certificate was issued on 12.06.2017, we need to

examine as to whether application filed on 14.03.2023 is within time, giving

the benefit of date 12.06.2017 when recovery certificate was issued.

Section 18 of the Limitation Act provides effect of acknowledgement in

writing.

Section 18(1) provides as follows: -

Where, before the expiration of the prescribed period for a suit or application in respect of any property or right, an acknowledgment of liability in respect of such property or right has been made in writing signed by the party against whom such property or right is claimed, or by any person through whom he derives his title or liability, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the acknowledgment was so signed.

OTS proposal is given by the Appellant to Bank of Baroda. Section

18 cannot be applicable in extending the Limitation against the BoB. The

Limitation against the Appellant to file or take steps for resolution under IBC,

arose atleast from the date when recovery certificate was issued. The mere

facts that the Appellant gave and OTS proposal to BoB shall not give any

benefit under Section 18 to the Appellant for computing the Limitation from

12.06.2017. By giving the benefit of the period under the order of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Suo moto Writ Petition the Limitation shall expire in 2022.

4 of 5 The application which was filed on 14.03.2023 was clearly barred by

time. We do not find any error in the order of the Adjudicating Authority

rejecting Section 94 application as barred by time. We do not find any merit

in these appeals.

Appeals are dismissed accordingly.

[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson

[Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Abhishek/md

5 of 5