# In the matter of V Nagarajan Vs. SKS Ispat and Power Ltd.& Ors Civil Appeal No. 3327 of 2020

> SC judgment dated 2021-10-22. Citation: TCN-2021-SC-00012. The appeal arises from an order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) which…

- **Court:** SC
- **Order date:** 22 Oct 2021
- **Citation:** TCN-2021-SC-00012
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/supreme-court-of-india/v-nagarajan-vs-sks-ispat-and-power-ltd-ors-civil-appeal-no-3327-of-2020-4c876fe1

## Summary

### Background

The appeal arises from an order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) which dismissed an appeal as barred by limitation. The appellant had appealed an order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) which dismissed the appellant's miscellaneous application in a liquidation proceeding, seeking interim relief against the invocation of a bank guarantee by Respondent No. 10 against the Corporate Debtor, Cethar Ltd. The NCLT held that the performance guarantees were not a 'Security Interest' and refused to grant an injunction against the invocation of the bank guarantee.

## Facts

Cethar Ltd, a company undergoing liquidation, had V Nagarajan appointed as its liquidator. Nagarajan initiated proceedings under Sections 43 and 45 of the IBC to challenge preferential and undervalued transactions involving SKS Ispat and Power Ltd. Nagarajan sought to prevent Respondent No. 10 from invoking bank guarantees issued by Cethar Ltd. The NCLT dismissed Nagarajan's application on December 31, 2019, stating the guarantees weren't a 'Security Interest'. Nagarajan appealed to the NCLAT, but the appeal was dismissed as time-barred. Nagarajan claims the NCLT order was uploaded late and with errors, and he requested a free copy. He argues the COVID-19 pandemic and a Supreme Court suo motu order extended the limitation period. The NCLAT rejected this, noting the

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the appeal before the NCLAT was barred by limitation under Section 61(1) of the Insolvency …

**Ratio:** Section 61(2) of the IBC provides a limitation period of thirty days for filing an

…

**Reasoning:** The court reasoned that the IBC's provisions regarding limitation must be strictly

…

**Interpretation:** The court interpreted Section 61(2) of the IBC to mean that the limitation

…

**Application:** The court applied this reasoning to the facts of the case, noting that the

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** Dr Dhananjaya Y…; VIKRAM…; +1 more
- **Appellants:** V. Naga…
- **Respondents:** Cethar…; SKS Ispat and…
- **Other parties:** Affir…

## Timeline

- **2018-04-25 — Appellant appointed as…**: V Nagarajan was appointed as the liquidator of Cethar Ltd after an unsuccessful…
- **2011-03-15 — Contract…**: Date of the contract between the…

## Legal provisions

- [Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Section 62 — Appeal to Supreme Court](https://caseease.in/legal-provisions/insolvency-and-bankruptcy-code-2016/section-62)

---

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/supreme-court-of-india/v-nagarajan-vs-sks-ispat-and-power-ltd-ors-civil-appeal-no-3327-of-2020-4c876fe1