Smt. Kanta Gupta vs Bank Of India & Ors. & Ors

Kanta Gupta ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Bank of India & Ors. ...Respondent(s) Present: For Appellant : Mr. Krishnendu Datta & Mr. Neeraj Malhotra, Sr. Advocates along with Mr. Nipun Gautam & Mr. Harsh, Advocates. For Respondents : Mr. Vadlamani Seshagiri, Mr. Christy Nameirakpam, Mr. Ananya Kukreti & Ms. Deepanshi Kaushik, Advocates for R-1. Ms. Eshna Kumar & Ms. Astha Agrawal, Advocates for R-4. Mr. Sandeep Bajaj, Mr. Akshit Awasthi, Mr. Mayank Biyani & Ms. Tanishka Kapoor, Advocates for R-5.

ORDER

(Hybrid Mode) [Per: Justice Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan, Member (Judicial)]

The instant appeal has been filed by the Appellant, who is the

personal guarantor of the principal borrower, against the impugned order

dated 26-05-2026 passed by the Ld. National Company Law Tribunal,

Chandigarh Bench (Adjudicating Authority) in CP No. 295 of 2025, whereby

the petition filed by the Appellant under Section 94 of the Insolvency and

Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) was dismissed on the grounds that the same

is barred by limitation.

2. During the pendency of the instant appeal the Liquidator has issued

an auction notice for the purpose of inviting bids for the auction of the CA (AT) (Ins) No. 1058 of 2026 & I.A. No. 4167, 4168, 4169, 4477 of 2026 2

leasehold rights in the subject property, along with the building constructed

thereon, at a reserve price of Rs. 49 Crores 50 Lakhs. The Appellant has also

moved IA No. 4477 of 2026 challenging the said auction notice.

3. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal appears to be that

the appellant is the personal guarantor of the loan made available to the

corporate debtor, namely M/s OSIL Exports Limited, which had availed

credit facilities from five banks under a consortium arrangement, namely:

 Bank of India, being the lead bank

 State Bank of India

 State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur

 State Bank of Patiala

 Oriental Bank of Commerce

Appellant had extended personal guarantees, which is evident from the

deeds of guarantee dated 21-05-2014 and 21-02-2015. On the happening of

the default, Bank of India had filed a petition under Section 7 of the Code

against the corporate debtor, being CP No. 128/2017, titled Bank of India

vs. OSIL Exports Limited, which was admitted by the Ld. Adjudicating

Authority by order dated 31/01/2018.

4. It is also reflected that as no viable Resolution Plan was accepted by

the CoC, and the Resolution Professional filed IA No. 526 of 2018 under

Section 33 of the Code seeking liquidation of the CD and by order dated 17-

10-2019, the liquidation process was commenced against the principal

borrower/CD.

CA (AT) (Ins) No. 1058 of 2026 & I.A. No. 4167, 4168, 4169, 4477 of 2026 3

5. It is further reflected that on 10-9-2019, Bank of India issued notice

under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, to the Appellant and

thereby invoked her personal guarantee. The Bank of India, being the lead

bank, also issued notice under Section 13 (4) of the SARFAESI Act, which

included the outstanding amount of all the 5 banks and took symbolic

possession of the assets of the personal guarantor.

6. It is also reflected that on 16/04/21, a one-time settlement proposal

was submitted by all guarantors, including the appellant, requesting the

financial creditor to consider the OTS on behalf of the corporate debtor. The

guarantors offered Rs. 22 Crore to settle the dispute. The revised OTS

proposal was also submitted by the Appellant on 03/04/2023.

7. It is further reflected that the appellant filed CP No. 295/2025 under

Section 94 of the IBC before the Ld. Adjudicating Authority on 18-12-25 and

vide order dated 20-01-2026, the Ld. Adjudicating Authority appointed

Resolution Professional, who submitted his report recommending admission

of the petition and observing that the debt was within limitation. The Bank

of India, however, filed objections with regard to the report of the Resolution

Professional, and Appellant also filed objections to the response. The petition

filed by Appellant under Section 94 of the Code was dismissed by the Ld.

Adjudicating Authority by passing impugned order dated 26/05/2026.

8. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties and have perused the

record.

9. Ld. Sr. Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the Ld.

Adjudicating Authority has committed an illegality in dismissing the petition

CA (AT) (Ins) No. 1058 of 2026 & I.A. No. 4167, 4168, 4169, 4477 of 2026 4

filed by the appellant under Section 94 of the Code, as the last milestone for

expiry of limitation period has not yet happened, as the recovery certificate

was not issued. Elaborating further, it is submitted that the limitation for

taking proceedings under Section 94 would commence from the cause of

action. However, the cause of action in this case has arisen on 27/6/2016,

when Section 13(2) notice was issued and ultimately a recovery certificate

was issued on 18/2/2019. Thereafter, the OTS proposals was submitted to

the creditors, and having regard to Section 18 of the Limitation Act, the

acknowledgement made by way of these OTS proposals had extended the

limitation period for another three years.

10. It is further submitted that the DRT proceedings are still pending

against the Appellant, which has not culminated till date, and therefore the

underlying borrower's guaranteed debt is still subsisting and enforceable.

Therefore, the rejection of the Section 94 petition by the Ld. Adjudicating

Authority is erroneous on the score that:

 the underlying debt recovery is still underway and pending

 the recovery certificate has still not been issued

 the corporate debtor is still continuing in liquidation, of which the

residual debt is liable to be paid by the personal guarantor, i.e. the

Appellant

Elaborating further, it is submitted that the CD is under liquidation, and the

liquidation process has still not culminated, therefore, the debt is still

CA (AT) (Ins) No. 1058 of 2026 & I.A. No. 4167, 4168, 4169, 4477 of 2026 5

enforceable, and therefore the petition filed by the Appellant under Section

94 of the Code may not be said to be barred by limitation.

11. It is further submitted that Section 18 of the Limitation Act does not

distinguish between a creditor and debtor, and it will apply with equal force

to the debtor as well as to the creditor. Therefore, the approach of the Ld.

Tribunal is erroneous.

12. It is further submitted that in the present case, Section 13 (2) notice

was issued on 10-09-2019, and the expiry of 60 days mentioned therein

constituted the date of default, i.e., 10-11-2019. However, the date of default

only indicates the first trigger for limitation. Therefore, it was imperative that

further acts or causes of action would renew the period of limitation, and

this aspect of the matter has been ignored by the Ld. Adjudicating

Authority.

13. It is vehemently submitted that when a creditor can use the

acknowledgements made by the debtor under Section 18 of the Limitation

Act, why the same acknowledgements could not be used by the debtor? It is

submitted that, at the cost of repetition, it is to be highlighted that Section

94 does not trigger on the first cause of action and allows the debtor to

submit itself to the jurisdiction of the Ld. Adjudicating Authority thereafter

at any date where the settlement of the dues may be in sight.

14. It is further submitted that the petition filed by the Appellant was

within time, as the liquidation process was pending against the CD and the

debt was enforceable. Moreover, Section 18 provides a new cause of action

has arisen due to the proposals made by the Appellant in the form of OTS.

CA (AT) (Ins) No. 1058 of 2026 & I.A. No. 4167, 4168, 4169, 4477 of 2026 6

15. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1, however, submits that the

Ld. Adjudicating Authority has correctly dismissed the application moved by

the appellant under Section 94 of the code as the appellant, in its own

application, admits that the cause of action is the invocation of the

guarantee by notice dated 10/09/2019 and thereafter, the limitation would

be available only till 10/09/2022, as specified under Article 137 of the

Limitation. It is highlighted that this Appellate Tribunal in Suyog Jain v.

Aravind Kumar 2025 SCC Online NCLAT 1354 has held that the

limitation for the sake of filing an application under Section 94 of the Code

has to be filed within a period of 3 years of the commencement of default

(i.e., from the invocation of guarantee).

16. It is further submitted that this contention of the Appellant is patently

wrong that, by virtue of the OTS proposals proposed by Appellant and

rejected by the Bank, the same would result in extension of limitation under

Section 18 of the Limitation Act. The law is well settled that once limitation

starts, it runs continuously and cannot be stopped. Further, the appellant

cannot seek any benefit under Section 18 of the Limitation Act by way of its

own acknowledgment, which has been disputed by the respondent, against

whom such right is being claimed. It is also highlighted that Section 18

categorically states that the acknowledgement of liability has to be signed by

the party against whom such right is being claimed. While there is no such

signed document available with the Appellant, which may extend the

limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act.

CA (AT) (Ins) No. 1058 of 2026 & I.A. No. 4167, 4168, 4169, 4477 of 2026 7

17. It is further submitted that Section 94 application was moved to

abuse the process of law. This Appellate Tribunal in Ashwani Kumar

Oberoi versus SBI 2026 SCC Online Nclat 595 and in Rojina firoz

Hajiani versus Union of India 2026 267 COMP CAS 82 has held that the

provision of 94 IBC is being broadly misused by the guarantors to delay the

proceedings of SARAFAESI Act, 2002.

18. It is further submitted that by moving IA No. 4477 of 2026, the

Appellant has sought the stay of auction notice dated 30 June 2026 issued

by the Respondent Bank, however the relief sought is beyond the

jurisdiction of this appellate tribunal, as the auction notice has been issued

under SARAFAESI Act, 2002 and the jurisdiction with regard to the said

notice lies with the DRT.

19. It is further submitted that the judgment passed by the Learned

Adjudicating Authority is a well-reasoned judgment, and no interference is

required therein. The Appellant has sat quietly for a period of over six years

since the issuance of Demand Notice, which has been issued under Section

13(2) of the SARAFAESI Act, 2002 by the Respondent Bank. The Appellant

has only instituted the present proceedings with the objective of claiming

the benefit of moratorium under Section 96 of the Code, which has

subsequently been amended to not apply to applications for personal

insolvency (owing to its flagrant misuse to stall the execution of remedies

available to banks and financial institutions under the SARAFAESI Act,

2002). Thus, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

CA (AT) (Ins) No. 1058 of 2026 & I.A. No. 4167, 4168, 4169, 4477 of 2026 8

20. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has relied on the law laid down by this

appellate tribunal in Suyog Jain v. Arvind Kumar, 2025 SCC online

NCLAT 1354, Ashwani Kumar Oberoi v. SBI, 2026 SCC online NCLAT

595, and Rozina Feroz Hajiani Vs Union of India, (2026) 267 Comp Cas

82.

21. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 - liquidator submits that

OSIL Exports Limited (CD) availed various financial facilities in 2014, and

the appellant and her husband, being the suspended directors of the CD,

executed personal guarantees in favour of the lenders. Upon default by the

CD, the loan account was classified as December 2015.

22. It is further submitted that Respondent No. 1, Bank of India, initiated

CIRP against the CD under Section 7 of the IBC, which was admitted by the

Ld. Adjudicating Authority on 31stJanuary 2018. As no resolution plan was

received, the CD was ordered into liquidation vide order dated 17th October

2019, and the answering respondent was appointed as the liquidator for the

purpose of conducting the liquidation process.

23. It is further submitted that during the liquidation process, the

Respondent initiated proceedings under the SARAFAESI Act, 2002 by

issuing the demand notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act on

10/09/2019, and a possession notice under Section 13(4) in respect of the

subject property was also given. It was during the pendency of this

liquidation proceedings Appellant filed an application under Section 94 of

the Code on 3rd December 2025, consequently RP was appointed by the Ld.

Adjudicating Authority under Section 97 of the Code, who submitted report

CA (AT) (Ins) No. 1058 of 2026 & I.A. No. 4167, 4168, 4169, 4477 of 2026 9

under Section 99 recommending admission of the application on the ground

that the Appellant's OTS proposal dated 16 April 2021 and 3rd April 2023

extended limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act. Respondent

bank has taken objection that the application is barred by limitation and

also that there is no valid acknowledgement. Accordingly, the application

filed by the appellant under Section 94 of the Code was dismissed by

passing the impugned order on the ground of being barred by limitation. The

liquidator in terms of liquidation regulations, published an auction notice on

June 30, 2026, inviting bidders for the auction of the leasehold rights of the

subject property along with the building constructed thereon at a reserve

price of Rs. 49,50,00,000/- and the appellant has also challenged auction

notice by moving an application being IA No. 4477 of 2026.

24. Ld. Counsel for the Liquidator submits that the above sequence of

events clearly demonstrates that the application under Section 94 of the

Code was not a bona fide invocation of the insolvency process but a

calculated attempt to obstruct realization of assets by the Banks.

Elaborating further, it is submitted that the Respondent-Liquidator

convened the 20th Meeting of the SCC on 3rd December 2025, wherein a

proposal for joint auction of the assets of the CD and of the Personal

Guarantor was under consideration. It is on the same day that the Appellant

hurriedly filed the application under Section 94 of the Code to trigger the

interim moratorium under Section 96 and thus the proceedings have been

filed only for the purpose of stalling the proposed auction.

CA (AT) (Ins) No. 1058 of 2026 & I.A. No. 4167, 4168, 4169, 4477 of 2026 10

25. It is further submitted that joint auction of assets is permissible for

the purpose of value maximization. In this regard, the learned counsel for

the Appellant has relied on the law laid down by this Appellate Tribunal in

Ayaan Malik v. Pratim Bayal Company (A-T) (I-N-S) No. 456 of 2022 and

Mr. Pratik Gupta and others v. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited and

another, Company Appeal (AT) (Ins) No. 147 of 2022.

26. It is also submitted that the application being IA No. 4477 of 2026,

filed under Rules 31 and 11 of the NCLT Rules, 2016, seeking stay of the

Option Notice dated 30 June 2026, is not maintainable. Rule 31 is merely

procedural and cannot enlarge the appellate jurisdiction of this appellate

tribunal to stay an independent statutory action of the liquidator.

27. It is further submitted that by notice dated 30th June 2026, only the

leasehold rights are being proposed to be auctioned in view of the lease deed

dated 15th October 2010, and it has been specified in the auction notice

clearly. Highlighting Section 36(3)(d) and Section 3(27) of the IBC, it is

submitted that these sections expressly include contractual rights and every

description of proprietary interest within the liquidation estate which may be

sold by the liquidator in order to maximize the value. In this regard, the law

laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Victory Iron Works Limited v.

Jitender Lohia and others, (2023) 7 SCC 227, has been relied.

28. Before proceeding further, it is clarified that on 31st July 2026, we

have noted that the Respondent No. 1 has filed the reply. It was also

informed that the Respondent No. 1 is the lead bank, while Respondent No.

2 and 3 are members of the consortium. Therefore, the reply filed by the

CA (AT) (Ins) No. 1058 of 2026 & I.A. No. 4167, 4168, 4169, 4477 of 2026 11

Respondent No. 1 may also be deemed to be the reply filed by the

respondent No. 2 and 3. In this regard, the statement made by the counsel

for respondent No. 1 was recorded. We have to place on record that, vide

order dated 22nd July 2026, we permitted the appellant to file amended

memo of parties, which has been filed. Now, having regard to the amended

memo of parties, the Bank of India, Punjab National Bank, Rare Assets

Reconstruction Limited, Mr. Diwan Asparan Nabi, and OSIL Exports Limited

have been arrayed as Respondent No. 1 to 5, respectively.

29. We also place on record that on 31st July 2026, we have heard the

submissions made by Ld. Counsel for the Appellant as well as Ld. Counsel

appearing for the respondents No. 1, 4 and 5.

30. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused

the record, we notice that there are certain facts in the instant appeal which

are admitted to the Appellant. In view of the facts stated by the appellant in

the memo of appeal and in the list of dates and events, it appears to be

admitted to the appellant that he had executed deeds of personal guarantee

in favour of the consortium lenders in respect of credit facilities availed by

OSIL exports Limited vide guarantee deeds dated 21st May 2014 and 21st

February 2015. The loan account of the CD was classified as a Non-

Performing Asset (NPA) on 31st Dec 2015.

31. It is also admitted to the Appellant that the Respondent No. 1, Bank of

India, filed a petition under Section 7 of the Code against the CD on

29/11/2017, and the Learned Adjudicating Authority vide Order dated

31/01/2018 initiated the CIRP against the CD.

CA (AT) (Ins) No. 1058 of 2026 & I.A. No. 4167, 4168, 4169, 4477 of 2026 12

32. It is also admitted to the Appellant that vide notice issued under

Section 13 of the SARAFAESI Act, 2002 on 10/09/2019, the personal

guarantee was invoked against the Appellant and also that in absence of any

viable Resolution Plan, the Ld. Adjudicating Authority has directed the

initiation of liquidation proceedings against the CD on 17th October 2019.

33. It is also admitted to the Appellant that the Respondent No. 1, Bank of

India, issued possession notice under Section 13(4) of the SARAFAESI Act,

2002, and took symbolic possession of assets of the Appellant on 25-11-

2019.

34. It is further stated by the appellant that the appellant submitted one-

time settlement proposal on 16-04-2021 and a revised OTS proposal on 03-

04-2023. Petition under Section 94 of the IBC was filed by the Appellant on

18th December 2025, whereon, the Ld. Adjudicating Authority appointed a

Resolution Professional on 20th January 2026, who submitted his report on

05/02/2026 in favour of the Appellant. However, Bank of India filed

objections to this report, contending that the application is beyond

limitation and also that the recovery proceedings had already been initiated.

The Appellant also filed a reply to the objections of the Bank of India,

however, the Ld. Adjudicating Authority dismissed the Section 94 petition by

passing the impugned order.

35. The main thrust of the submissions advanced by Ld. Counsel for the

appellant is on the fact that by submitting OTS proposals dated 16-04-2021

and revised proposal on 03-04-2023 within the period of limitation of three

years since invocation of guarantee on 10.09.2019, the same would

CA (AT) (Ins) No. 1058 of 2026 & I.A. No. 4167, 4168, 4169, 4477 of 2026 13

constitute valid acknowledgement of liability under Section 18 of the

Limitation Act, 1963 and a fresh period of three years would commence from

such acknowledgement in writing and thus period till 03.04.2026 was

available to the guarantor to file petition.

36. Ld. Counsels for the Respondents have contended that Section 94

application was moved with mala fide intent and was not a bona fide

invocation of the insolvency process and it is a calculated attempt to

obstruct realization of assets by the banks. It is highlighted that 20th

meeting of the SCC was held on 03/12/2025, wherein a proposal for joint

auction of the assets of the CD and of the personal guarantor was under

consideration. On the very same day, the appellant hurriedly filed the

application under Section 94 of the code only for the purpose of triggering

the interim moratorium under Section 96 and it was not a sincere effort for

submitting any repayment plan.

37. It was also highlighted that the guarantee was invoked in the year

2019, and the petition under Section 94 was filed after six years, which itself

shows that the same has not been filed with any bona fide intention. It is

also the case of the respondents that by moving any OTS, the appellant

cannot invoke Section 18 of the Indian Limitation Act for the purpose of

extension of limitation.

38. We also notice that the Ld. Adjudicating Authority in the impugned

order has given following reasons for dismissing the application filed by the

Appellant under Section 94 of the Code: -

CA (AT) (Ins) No. 1058 of 2026 & I.A. No. 4167, 4168, 4169, 4477 of 2026 14

"5. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the Creditor and the RP. As can be seen from the provisions of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, where before the expiration of the prescribed period of limitation for a suit or application in respect of any property or right an acknowledgement 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. Section 18(1) of the Limitation Act reads thus:

"Section 18(1) of the Limitation Act, 1963 (India) deals with the effect of acknowledgment in writing. It provides:

Where, before the expiration of the prescribed limitation period for a suit or application relating to any property or right, an acknowledgment of liability regarding that property or right is made in writing and signed by the party against whom the right is claimed (or by a person through whom he derives title or liability), a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the date on which the acknowledgment was signed".

6. From the aforementioned provisions, it is clear that the acknowledgment should be made by the parties against whom the right is claimed. In the present case, when the debtor has initiated the process to offer repayment plan to creditors, the Bank of India as one of the creditor has opposed the report of RP. To take the benefit of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, the RP need to show the acknowledgment from the Bank of India, which has actively opposed the admission of the present petition. The RP/debtor cannot seek the benefit of the act of debtor. If an acknowledgment by the party pursuing the cause is relied upon to give benefit of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, the provision could be widely abused. It could be different issue if the creditor i.e. Bank of India, had accepted the proposal and then the debtor/PG subsequently committed default in repaying the amount of debt (settled amount). However, such is not the position in the present case. Indubitably, Account of the principal debtor was declared as NPA on 31.12.2015 and the notice under Section 13(2) of SARFAESI Act, 2002 was issued on 10.09.2019, thus the debtor had period of limitation available to him to file petition under Section 94 of IBC, 2016 till 09.09.2022. The petition preferred under Section 94 of the Code in the year 2025, is barred by limitation and deserves to be rejected. In the wake, the CA (AT) (Ins) No. 1058 of 2026 & I.A. No. 4167, 4168, 4169, 4477 of 2026 15

recommendation/report given by the RP as annexed and the petition preferred under Section 94 of IBC are rejected. IA(IBC)/195(CH) 2026 and CP(IB) No.295/Chd/Hry/2025 are accordingly disposed of".

39. We at the outset record that the view adopted by Ld. Adjudicating

Authority is in accordance with law and in our considered opinion also, the

appellant by any unilateral act cannot enhance or extend the limitation.

Section 18 (1) of the Limitation Act, 1963, provides as under:

"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".

The principle which is enshrined under Section 18 of the Limitation Act,

1963, is pertaining to getting the benefit of the acknowledgement made in

writing by the opposite party against whom some right is being claimed,

however, the same could not be claimed by the person on the basis of his

own act. In simple words, if the acknowledgement has been made by the

opposite party in writing against whom any right is being asserted, the same

acknowledgement may enhance the period of limitation. However, a party,

by making any document, himself, cannot extend the period of limitation by

invoking section 18 of the Indian Limitation Act. In this regard the law laid

down by this appellate tribunal in Zameer Pawan Kumar Agarwal v.

Pankaj Prabhudayal Goenka (RP) and Ors., (2025) ibclaw.in 1044

NCLAT may be recalled.

CA (AT) (Ins) No. 1058 of 2026 & I.A. No. 4167, 4168, 4169, 4477 of 2026 16

40. In fact, Zamir Pawan Kumar Agarwal (supra) was cited by Ld. Senior

Counsel, appearing for the Appellant, in order to project that the limitation

period would start from the date when the recovery certificate has been

issued. However, we are of the considered view that the limitation period, so

far as the guarantor is concerned, would commence from the date of

invocation of the guarantee. In the aforesaid case of Zamir Pawan Kumar

Agarwal, a coordinate branch of this Appellate Tribunal has categorically

held that the mere fact that the Appellant gave an OTS proposal to the bank

shall not give any benefit under Section 18 of the Indian Limitation Act to

the Appellant for completing the limitation period.

41. This Appellate Tribunal, in Yogesh Kumar Thakkar vs Indian

Overseas Banks and Others (2026) ibclaw.in 655 NCLAT, categorically

held that for Section 94 application, the limitation would start running

against the personal guarantor for initiating proceeding under Section 94 of

the Code from the cause of action which according to the Tribunal occurred

in that case on 27/06/2016 when the notice under Section 13(2) of the

SARAFAESI Act, 2002, was issued, and thereafter, when recovery certificate

was issued on 18/02/2019. Thus the cause of action would accrue from

invocation of guarantee.

42. This may be viewed from another angle. An OTS, which has been

moved by the guarantor, is nothing but an admission of liability. Having

regard to the general principles of admissions, a party making an admission

cannot use the same for his own benefit. Rather, the admission made by a

party can be proved against him by the other party. The OTS, which has

CA (AT) (Ins) No. 1058 of 2026 & I.A. No. 4167, 4168, 4169, 4477 of 2026 17

been moved by the Appellant as a personal guarantor, could be used by the

bank for invoking Section 18 of the Limitation Act, but the same could not

be used by the Appellant/Guarantor himself in order to extend the

limitation.

43. Thus, if we exclude the period which has been included by the

appellant in view of Section 18 of the Indian Limitation Act, it would emerge

that the three-year period provided under Section 137 of the Indian

Limitation Act has expired much before the institution of the proceeding by

the appellant, under Section 94 of the Code, on 18-12-2025. Thus, the

petition filed by the appellant under Section 94 of the Code was clearly

barred by limitation.

44. Since we have found that the petition filed by the Appellant under

Section 94 of the Code is barred by limitation, we are not commenting on

the timing of filing the Section 94 petition by the Appellant as highlighted by

the Respondent and suffice it is to say that by passing the impugned order,

no illegality appears to have been committed by Ld. Adjudicating Authority.

45. Thus, for the reasons given here in before, we do not find any merit in

the appeal filed by the appellant, therefore the appeal as well as the IA No.

4477 of 2026 filed by the appellant is hereby dismissed.

CA (AT) (Ins) No. 1058 of 2026 & I.A. No. 4167, 4168, 4169, 4477 of 2026 18

46. There is no order as to costs.

47. Pending I.A.'s, if any, is also disposed of.

[Justice Mohammad Faiz Alam Khan] Member (Judicial)

[Naresh Salecha] Member (Technical) New Delhi 21.08.2026 sr

CA (AT) (Ins) No. 1058 of 2026 & I.A. No. 4167, 4168, 4169, 4477 of 2026