# Dr. Srinivas Manchala vs. State Bank of India & Ors.

> NCLAT judgment dated 6 Apr 2026. Citation: TCN-2026-NCLAT-00143. Dr. Srinivas Manchala (Appellant) claimed a coparcenary right over the assets of his deceased…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 6 Apr 2026
- **Citation:** TCN-2026-NCLAT-00143
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/dr-srinivas-manchala-vs-state-bank-of-india-ors-9mahw

## Summary

### Background

Dr. Srinivas Manchala (Appellant) claimed a coparcenary right over the assets of his deceased mother, Late Smt. Manchala Andalamma, which were reportedly used as security for a loan to M/s. Maruthi Tubes Pvt. Ltd. (Corporate Debtor) by State Bank of India (Financial Creditor). His brother, Mr. Manchala Nagesh Kumar, was a personal guarantor. The Appellant sought to intervene in the Section 95 IBC proceedings initiated against Mr. Manchala Nagesh Kumar, arguing that his coparcenary right made him a necessary party. This claim was supported by the fact that he had also filed an Original Suit No.58/2022 seeking partition of the joint family property, which included the disputed assets. The State Bank of India had initially mistakenly listed the Appellant as a guarantor

…

## Facts

State Bank of India (Respondent No.1/Financial Creditor) provided financial assistance to M/s. Maruthi Tubes Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent No.3/Corporate Debtor).

Mr. Manchala Nagesh Kumar (Respondent No.2) and Late Smt. Manchala Andalamma (mother of the Appellant) stood as personal guarantors for the loan.

A default occurred on 16.09.2022, with an outstanding amount of Rs.5,94,11,895/- due from Respondent No.3.

M/s. Dugar Polymers Ltd. initiated CIRP against Respondent No.3, leading to its admission on 10.11.2021 and subsequent dissolution on 12.08.2024.

State Bank of India filed proceedings under Section 95 of the I & B Code, 2016, against Mr. Manchala Nagesh Kumar, which were admitted by the Adjudicating Authority on 28.01.2026.

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the intervention application filed by the Appellant was maintainable when the Company …

**Ratio:** An intervention application is not maintainable if the main proceedings in which

…

**Reasoning:** The Appellant's intervention application was preferred on 02.02.2026, whereas the Company

…

**Interpretation:** The Tribunal interpreted the procedural rule regarding intervention, stating

…

**Application:** Given that the Company Petition was decided prior to the filing of the

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Sharad Kumar…; Jatindranat…
- **Appellants:** Srinivas Ma…
- **Respondents:** M/s. Maruthi…; State Bank of…; +1 more
- **Other parties:** Insolvency and…; Personal Gu…; +6 more

## Timeline

- **2020-03-18 — Initiation of SARFAESI…**: OA No.175/2020 was drawn before the Learned DRT for recovery of an outstanding amount of…
- **2021-05-21 — Demise of Late Smt.…**: Late Smt. Manchala Andalamma, mother of the Appellant and one of the personal guarantors,…

---

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/nclat-new-delhi/dr-srinivas-manchala-vs-state-bank-of-india-ors-9mahw