# In the matter of K.M. Sebastine vs. State Bank of India & Anr.

> NCLAT judgment dated 2024-07-18. Citation: TCN-2024-NCLAT-00313. The case involves an appeal against the order dated 31.01.2024 passed by the National Company…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 18 Jul 2024
- **Citation:** TCN-2024-NCLAT-00313
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/km-sebastine-vs-state-bank-of-india-anr-9abf01d0

## Summary

### Background

The case involves an appeal against the order dated 31.01.2024 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi Bench, which admitted a Section 95 application filed by the State Bank of India against the Appellant, who is the Personal Guarantor of M/s Schifflies India Ltd. The proceedings for Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) have already been initiated against the Corporate Debtor. The application under Section 95 was filed by the Bank claiming debt and default to the personal guarantor, and a Resolution Professional was appointed. The application was admitted under Section 100, leading the personal guarantor to appeal.

## Facts

The State Bank of India filed a Section 95 application against K.M. Sebastine, the personal guarantor of Schifflies India Ltd., due to defaults on a loan for which Sebastine provided a personal guarantee. The NCLT admitted the application, leading Sebastine to appeal. The appellant argued that the application was time-barred, as the initial notice invoking the guarantee was issued on 26.08.2014, while the application was filed in 2022. The bank contended that the limitation period was extended due to OTS proposals made by the Corporate Debtor on 28.11.2016 and 07.09.2017, and a decree passed by DRT on 28.01.2019 in OA No. 394 of 2014. The notice of demand was given on 26.08.2014. The court considered whether the application was barred by limitation and whether the

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the application filed under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code was barred by …

**Ratio:** Even if there is no plea raised regarding limitation, the court is obliged to examine the

…

**Reasoning:** The court noted that the Adjudicating Authority considered the pleadings regarding the

…

**Interpretation:** The court interpreted that the OTS proposals and the decree obtained by the

…

**Application:** The court applied the principle that the OTS proposals and the decree obtained

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Ashok Bh…; Barun M…
- **Appellants:** K.M. Seba…
- **Respondents:** M/s Schifflies…; State Bank of…

## Timeline

- **2010-11-19 — Guarantee…**: Clause 1 of the…
- **2014-08-26 — Notice Invoking…**: Notice invoking the corporate…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 95 — Application by creditor to initiate insolvency…](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-95)

---

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/km-sebastine-vs-state-bank-of-india-anr-9abf01d0