Prakash Kishorebhai Bindal Personal ... vs Axis Bank Limited
- CitationCompany Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 780 of 2026
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a recall notice calling upon the borrower and guarantor to pay the outstanding dues is issued and the guarantor's liability is invoked, limitation for initiating proceedings under Section 94 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code runs from the date of that notice; the limitation period is not arrested or restarted by a subsequent notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, nor is it extended by a later variation in the amount claimed, which may arise from the lapse of time or accrual of interest.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Prakash Kishorebhai Bindal, PG to Bindal Fashion Pvt Ltd. ...Appellant
Versus
Axis Bank Limited ...Respondent
Present: For Appellant : Mr. Saumitra Chaturvedi, Mr. Himanshu Chaubey, Mr. Srijan Sinha, Mr. Siddharth Garg, Mr. Rishi Chouksay, Advocates. For Respondent :
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
29.04.2026: Heard learned counsel for the Appellant. This appeal has
been filed against order dated 11.03.2026 by which Section 95 application
filed by the Appellant has been rejected as barred by time. The Bank had
issued a notice for recall of loan on 05.05.2022 calling upon the Borrower and
the Guarantor to pay the outstanding dues and also invoked the guarantor's
liability. The Appellant filed an application on 17.01.2026 under Section 94,
which has been dismissed as barred by time.
2. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that application was not
barred by time since after recall notice, the Appellant accepted the liability
and requested the bank to give some time.
Cont'd.../
3. The limitation against the Appellant to initiate proceeding arose on
05.05.2022 when the recall notice was issued. Admittedly, the Appellant has
filed Section 94 application after expiry of three years.
4. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that there was subsequent
notices under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act where amounts were also
different and when the limitation is taken from subsequent date, application
was not barred by limitation.
5. When the limitation start running after notice dated 05.05.2022, it shall
not be arrested on account of notice under Section 13(2). The difference of
amount could be for reasons of elapse of time, interest or other reason.
6. We do not find any error in the order the Adjudicating Authority
rejecting Section 94 application as barred by limitation, however, we make it
clear that it shall be open for the Appellant to approach the Bank for such
relief as available in law. Appeal is dismissed.
[Justice Ashok Bhushan] Chairperson
[Indevar Pandey] Member (Technical) Archana/md
Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 780 of 2026 2 of 2
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