# In the matter of Bank of Maharashtra Limited vs. Suraj Bharatkumar Parekh & Ors.

> NCLT judgment dated 2025-01-14. Citation: TCN-2025-NCLT-00629. The Bank of Maharashtra Limited filed four Company Petitions (CP (IB) Nos. 733/MB/2023,…

- **Court:** NCLT
- **Order date:** 14 Jan 2025
- **Citation:** TCN-2025-NCLT-00629
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclt-division-bench-court-i-chenn/bank-of-maharashtra-limited-vs-suraj-bharatkumar-parekh-ors-7fd2bdf0

## Summary

### Background

The Bank of Maharashtra Limited filed four Company Petitions (CP (IB) Nos. 733/MB/2023, 734/MB/2023, 743/MB/2023, and 744/MB/2023) under Section 95(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, read with Rule 7(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to the Adjudicating Authority for Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtors) Rules, 2019. These petitions sought to initiate the Insolvency Resolution Process against Mr. Suraj Bharatkumar Parekh, Ms. Vrunda Suraj Parekh, Mr. Syed Atif Hussain, and Mr. Mintu Vasant Saliya, who are the personal guarantors to M/s. Macguire Ceramics LLP, the Corporate Debtor. The applications were filed due to a default of Rs. 20,72,62,160.89/- as of 15.07.2023. The applications were filed on two

…

## Facts

Bank of Maharashtra Limited filed four Company Petitions (CP (IB) Nos. 733/MB/2023, 734/MB/2023, 743/MB/2023, and 744/MB/2023) against Mr. Suraj Bharatkumar Parekh, Ms. Vrunda Suraj Parekh, Mr. Syed Atif Hussain, and Mr. Mintu Vasant Saliya, who are personal guarantors to M/s. Macguire Ceramics LLP, the Corporate Debtor. The applications were filed under Section 95(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, read with Rule 7(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to the Adjudicating Authority for Insolvency Resolution Process for Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtors) Rules, 2019. The Corporate Debtor defaulted on a loan of Rs. 20,72,62,160.89/- as of 15.07.2023. The loan was sanctioned on 11.06.2012, and the Corporate Debtor executed several documents

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the applications filed under Section 95 of the IBC are within the prescribed limitation …

**Ratio:** The limitation period for initiating insolvency proceedings against a guarantor starts

…

**Reasoning:** The court found that the demand notices were issued on 17.11.2022 and were deemed to have

…

**Interpretation:** The court interpreted the provisions of the IBC and the law of limitation in

…

**Application:** The court applied the ratio to the facts of the case and concluded that the

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** K. R. SAJI…; SANJIV…
- **Appellants:** BANK OF MAHARASHTR…
- **Respondents:** M/s. Macguire…; SURAJ BHARATKUMAR…

## Timeline

- **2012-06-11 — Sanction…**: The FC sanctioned an amount of Rs.8,00,00,000/- (Eight Crore Rupees) in favour of the CD…
- **2017-09-28 — NPA Decla…**: The CD's loan account…

## 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/nclt-division-bench-court-i-chenn/bank-of-maharashtra-limited-vs-suraj-bharatkumar-parekh-ors-7fd2bdf0