# Vijay Pandey & Maya Pandey vs. Small Industries Development Bank of India & Rakesh Kumar Jindal

> NCLAT judgment dated 2026-06-30. Citation: TCN-2026-NCLAT-00215. Two appeals (Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 772 of 2025 by Vijay Pandey and No. 773 of 2025…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 30 Jun 2026
- **Citation:** TCN-2026-NCLAT-00215
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/vijay-pandey-maya-pandey-vs-small-industries-development-bank-of-india-rakesh-ku-8t77z

## Summary

### Background

Two appeals (Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 772 of 2025 by Vijay Pandey and No. 773 of 2025 by Maya Pandey) were filed against identical orders dated 13.02.2025 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Allahabad Bench. These orders allowed applications filed by Small Industries Development Bank of India (SIDBI) under Section 95(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), initiating Personal Insolvency Resolution Process (PIRP) against the appellants. The appellants, husband and wife, are personal guarantors to the corporate debtor, M/s Bhartiya Micro Credit, for a loan sanctioned by SIDBI. The core dispute revolves around whether the personal guarantees were validly invoked and served prior to the initiation of insolvency proceedings, as required

…

## Facts

Small Industries Development Bank of India (SIDBI), the Financial Creditor, sanctioned a loan facility to the corporate debtor M/s Bhartiya Micro Credit on 23.05.2017.

A term loan of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- was granted to the corporate debtor through a loan agreement executed on 22.09.2017.

Shri Vijay Pandey and Smt. Maya Pandey, directors of the corporate debtor and appellants herein, executed a Deed of Guarantee on 22.09.2017 in favour of the financial creditor.

Clause 03 of the Deed of Guarantee stipulated that the guarantor would be liable to pay outstanding dues "upon demand" by the financial creditor.

The corporate debtor's account was classified as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 12.12.2019.

SIDBI recalled the loan from the Corporate Debtor on 01.06.2021.

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the Personal Guarantee executed by the Appellants were validly invoked before initiation of …

**Ratio:** The invocation of a personal guarantee is conclusively established through a continuous

…

**Reasoning:** The NCLAT found that SIDBI issued an invocation letter on 26.11.2021, a loan recall

…

**Interpretation:** Contractual terms, such as Clause 23 defining deemed service, are paramount.

…

**Application:** Given the invocation letter (26.11.2021), recall notice (04.02.2022), statutory

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** N. Sesha…; Arun Ba…; +1 more
- **Appellants:** Vijay P…; Maya Pa…
- **Respondents:** M/s Bhartiya…; Small Industries…; +1 more
- **Other parties:** SIDB…
- **Advocates:** Sabhay Cho…; Shubham Raghuwansh…; +6 more

## Timeline

- **2017-05-23 — Loan Sanc…**: Small Industries Development Bank of India (SIDBI) sanctioned a loan facility to the…
- **2017-09-22 — Loan Agreement &…**: A term loan of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- was granted to the corporate debtor through a loan…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 95(1) — 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/vijay-pandey-maya-pandey-vs-small-industries-development-bank-of-india-rakesh-ku-8t77z