# In the matter of Sanjay Jain vs. State Bank of India & Ors.

> NCLAT judgment dated 2024-11-21. Citation: TCN-2024-NCLAT-00079. The case involves an appeal filed by Mr. Sanjay Jain against the admission of a Section 95…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 21 Nov 2024
- **Citation:** TCN-2024-NCLAT-00079
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/sanjay-jain-vs-state-bank-of-india-ors-2459b226

## Summary

### Background

The case involves an appeal filed by Mr. Sanjay Jain against the admission of a Section 95 application by the Adjudicating Authority, filed by the State Bank of India (SBI). The appellant sought condonation of a 26-day delay in filing the appeal. Notices issued to the appellant on January 6, 2023, were returned unserved, leading the Adjudicating Authority to order substituted service via newspaper publication. Despite this, no one appeared on behalf of the appellant, and the Personal Guarantor was set ex-parte. The appellant claims to have learned about the impugned order only on March 30, 2024, when approaching Punjab National Bank (PNB) for a One Time Settlement (OTS), and argues the appeal was filed within 30 days of this knowledge.

## Facts

Mr. Sanjay Jain is the appellant in the case. State Bank of India (SBI) filed a Section 95 application against Mr. Jain, which was admitted by the Adjudicating Authority via an impugned order dated February 26, 2024. Notices issued to Mr. Jain on January 6, 2023, were returned unserved. The Adjudicating Authority then ordered substituted service through newspaper publication. Mr. Jain claims he only became aware of the order on March 30, 2024, when he approached Punjab National Bank (PNB) for a One Time Settlement (OTS). The address used for serving notices was an outdated address of Ashok Vihar's Assets, which were sold in 2012. The Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) had noted this address change in an order dated March 5, 2019, in the matter of 'Bank of Baroda' Vs. 'M/s.

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Appellant has made out a case for condonation of 26 days delay as prayed in the …

**Ratio:** The jurisdiction to condone delay is limited to 15 days as per Section 61(2) proviso of

…

**Reasoning:** The court relied on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in 'National Spot Exchange

…

**Interpretation:** Section 61(2) of the IBC explicitly limits the Appellate Tribunal's power to

…

**Application:** The Appellant sought condonation for a 26-day delay. Since the Tribunal's

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Ashok Bh…; Barun M…; +1 more
- **Appellants:** Sanjay…
- **Respondents:** State Bank of…

## Timeline

- **2023-01-06 — Notices I…**: Notices were issued to the Appellant in Section 95 Application, which were returned…
- **2023-11-23 — Ex-Parte…**: Adjudicating Authority passed an Order holding that despite service of Notice by…

## 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/sanjay-jain-vs-state-bank-of-india-ors-2459b226