# In the matter of State Bank of India vs. Gourishankar Poddar and Anr.

> NCLAT judgment dated 2025-01-06. Citation: TCN-2025-NCLAT-00286. The case involves two appeals (Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 689 of 2024 and Company Appeal…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 6 Jan 2025
- **Citation:** TCN-2025-NCLAT-00286
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/state-bank-of-india-vs-gourishankar-poddar-and-anr-6f8a6d0c

## Summary

### Background

The case involves two appeals (Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 689 of 2024 and Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 663 of 2024) arising from a common order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Ahmedabad Bench, on 23.02.2024 in CP (IB) No. 80 (AHM) 2021. The first appeal was filed by State Bank of India (SBI) against the dismissal of its petition under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) to initiate insolvency proceedings against Mr. Gourishankar Poddar, a personal guarantor to Raj Rayon Industries Limited (Corporate Debtor). The NCLT dismissed the petition on the grounds that the guarantees were either unenforceable or time-barred. The second appeal was filed by Ms. Vineeta Maheshwari, the Resolution Professional, seeking quashing of adverse

…

## Facts

In 1999, Raj Rayon Industries Limited (Corporate Debtor) availed financial assistance from State Bank of India (SBI) in the form of term loans and working capital loans, secured by an agreement executed on 06.12.2005. The financial arrangement underwent several amendments. On 10.07.2013, Mr. Gourishankar Poddar, as a director of the Corporate Debtor, executed a Deed of Guarantee for ₹292 crores, which was irrevocable, unconditional, and continuous. The Corporate Debtor defaulted on repayment obligations in 2013, leading to its account being classified as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 30.11.2013. Mr. Poddar resigned as a director on 06.03.2014, which was accepted on 18.03.2014. Despite his resignation, he executed another Deed of Guarantee on 29.03.2014, reaffirming

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether revocation of guarantee by …

**Ratio:** A guarantor's liability depends on the terms of the contract. A continuing guarantee is

…

**Reasoning:** The Adjudicating Authority held that the respondent, who had resigned as a director,

…

**Interpretation:** The legal principle is that a guarantor cannot unilaterally revoke a guarantee

…

**Application:** In this case, the respondent executed both the 2013 and 2014 Guarantees, which

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Rakesh Kuma…; Naresh Sa…; +1 more
- **Appellants:** State Bank of…
- **Respondents:** Raj Rayon…; Gourishankar…

## Timeline

- **1999-01-01 — Financial Assistance…**: Raj Rayon Industries Limited availed…
- **2005-12-06 — Agreement E…**: Agreement executed between Raj Rayon…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 61(1) — Appeals and Appellate Authority](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-61)

---

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/state-bank-of-india-vs-gourishankar-poddar-and-anr-6f8a6d0c