# In the matter of State Bank of India vs. Neeta Jain

> NCLT judgment dated 2024-08-30. Citation: TCN-2024-NCLT-00723. The case involves an application filed by State Bank of India (SBI) under Section 95 of the…

- **Court:** NCLT
- **Order date:** 30 Aug 2024
- **Citation:** TCN-2024-NCLT-00723
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclt-division-bench-court-i-chenn/state-bank-of-india-vs-neeta-jain-664a473a

## Summary

### Background

The case involves an application filed by State Bank of India (SBI) under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, against Neeta Jain, a personal guarantor to the loans availed by M/s. Kanishk Gold Private Limited (Corporate Debtor). The application seeks to initiate the insolvency resolution process against Neeta Jain due to a default on the principal amount of INR 359,95,77,333.94 as of 15.09.2020. The Corporate Debtor's loan account was classified as Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 28.07.2017, and a demand notice was issued on 12.09.2017 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act. SBI also filed OA No. 347 of 2018 before DRT-II Chennai for recovery of dues, which is pending consideration. An earlier application under Section 7 of IBC against the

…

## Facts

State Bank of India (SBI) filed an application under Section 95 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, against Neeta Jain, who acted as a personal guarantor for loans availed by M/s. Kanishk Gold Private Limited, the Corporate Debtor. The principal amount in default was INR 359,95,77,333.94 as of 15.09.2020. The Corporate Debtor's loan account was classified as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) on 28.07.2017. A demand notice was issued to the Corporate Debtor and Guarantors on 12.09.2017 under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act, but it was not successful. SBI also filed OA No. 347 of 2018 before DRT-II Chennai for recovery of dues, which is currently pending. The Corporate Debtor had availed working capital credit facilities and term loan facilities from SBI and

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the application filed by State Bank of India under Section 95 of the Insolvency and …

**Ratio:** The principle of limitation is that legal proceedings must be initiated within a

…

**Reasoning:** The Tribunal considered the date of default (28.07.2017) and the date of filing the

…

**Interpretation:** The interpretation of the limitation period is crucial in determining the

…

**Application:** In this case, the Tribunal applied the extended limitation period to the facts,

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** SANJIV…; Venkataraman…
- **Appellants:** State Bank of…
- **Respondents:** M/s. Kanishk Gold…; Neeta…

## Timeline

- **2017-07-28 — Loan Account Classified…**: The loan account of the Corporate Debtor was…
- **2017-09-12 — Demand Notice…**: A demand notice was issued to the Corporate Debtor and Guarantors under Section 13(2) of…

## 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/state-bank-of-india-vs-neeta-jain-664a473a