# In the matter of Kirtanlal & Sons vs. Saunak Harshad Choksi

> NCLT judgment dated 2024-03-04. Citation: TCN-2024-NCLT-02228. The case involves an application filed under Section 99(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy…

- **Court:** NCLT
- **Order date:** 4 Mar 2024
- **Citation:** TCN-2024-NCLT-02228
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclt-division-bench-court-i-chenn/kirtanlal-sons-vs-saunak-harshad-choksi-69f73d38

## Summary

### Background

The case involves an application filed under Section 99(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) by the Resolution Professional (RP) appointed to oversee an application filed under Section 95 of the IBC 2016 by Kirtanlal & Sons, the Financial Creditor, against Saunak Harshad Choksi, the Personal Guarantor. The RP submitted a report which the court found to be inconsistent and incomplete, as details of the debt and repayment were not furnished by the Personal Guarantor and Financial Creditor. The applicant argued that their documents were not considered before the report was sent. The High Court of Mumbai had previously decreed the debt in 2005, and further proceedings were initiated by the applicant. The Corporate Debtor had filed a reference application

…

## Facts

Kirtanlal & Sons, the Financial Creditor, filed an application under Section 95 of the IBC 2016 against Saunak Harshad Choksi, the Personal Guarantor, seeking initiation of insolvency proceedings. The application was filed based on a debt that was initially decreed by the High Court of Mumbai in 2005. Subsequent to the decree, the Corporate Debtor filed a reference application before the BIFR in 2006, which led to a stay on the decree. However, the High Court of Bombay set aside the stay order in 2019, allowing Kirtanlal & Sons to proceed with the execution of the decree against the guarantors. A demand notice was served on the Personal Guarantor on 14.07.2022, and the application was filed on 23.09.2022. The Resolution Professional (RP) appointed to assess the

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the application filed under Section 99(1) …

**Ratio:** The period of limitation for filing an application under the IBC is determined by the

…

**Reasoning:** The court considered the orders passed by the High Court of Mumbai, which set aside the

…

**Interpretation:** The interpretation of the Limitation Act in conjunction with the IBC provisions

…

**Application:** In this case, the High Court's order setting aside the stay on the decree in

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Chitra Ha…; Velamur G Venkata…
- **Appellants:** Kirtanlal…
- **Respondents:** Saunak Harshad…

## Timeline

- **2005-03-15 — High Court…**: The High Court of Mumbai passed…
- **2006-01-02 — BIFR Appli…**: The Corporate Debtor filed a…

## 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/nclt-division-bench-court-i-chenn/kirtanlal-sons-vs-saunak-harshad-choksi-69f73d38