# IDBI Trusteeship Services Limited vs. Manish Jain & Ors.

> HC judgment dated 2026-08-19. Citation: TCN-2026-HC-00049. Defendant No.2 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,…

- **Court:** HC
- **Order date:** 19 Aug 2026
- **Citation:** TCN-2026-HC-00049
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/bombay-high-court-panaji/idbi-trusteeship-services-limited-vs-defendant-no3-7153b

## Summary

### Background

Defendant No.2 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of the plaint. The defendant argued that the suit was not maintainable against them due to an interim moratorium under Section 96 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), as they are a personal guarantor (PG) to a corporate debtor (CD). The plaintiff had initiated Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the corporate debtor (defendant no.3) and invoked the personal guarantee of defendant no.1, but not defendant no.2, acknowledging the subsisting interim moratorium.

## Facts

Defendant No.2 filed an application (I.A. 32519/2025) under Order VII Rule 11 (a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of the plaint.

Defendant No.2 argued that the suit is not maintainable against them as it is barred by law due to an interim moratorium under Section 96 of the IBC.

Plaintiff (IDBI Trusteeship Services Limited) filed Company Petition C.P. (IB) 206 of 2025 before the NCLT, Chandigarh Bench, against defendant no.3 (principal borrower) for an alleged default of Rs.15,23,73,367/-.

Plaintiff invoked the Personal Guarantee of defendant no.1 by issuing a demand notice dated 30.05.2025.

Plaintiff did not invoke the Personal Guarantee of defendant no.2, being aware that an interim moratorium was subsisting in respect of defendant no.2.

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the present suit is maintainable against defendant no.2, given the interim moratorium under …

**Ratio:** The amendment to Section 96 of the IBC, by inserting sub-section (4), operates

…

**Reasoning:** The Court relied on Supreme Court judgments (Vineeta Sharma, SEBI vs. Rajkumar Nagpal,

…

**Interpretation:** The phrase 'where an application is filed' in Section 96(4) is interpreted to

…

**Application:** Since the plaintiff's application under Section 95 of IBC against defendant

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** TUSHAR RAO…
- **Appellants:** IDBI Trusteeship…; Defendant…
- **Respondents:** Defendant…; MANISH…
- **Other parties:** Resolution…
- **Advocates:** Pranjit Bhattachar…; Nitya Pra…; +6 more

## Timeline

- **2024-08-10 — Application under…**: Plaintiff filed an application under Section…
- **2025-02-20 — Resolution Professional…**: The Resolution Professional (RP) was…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 96 — Interim- moratorium](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-96)

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/bombay-high-court-panaji/idbi-trusteeship-services-limited-vs-defendant-no3-7153b