Authority: National Company Law Tribunal, Jaipur Bench (Hon'ble Ms. Reeta Kohli, Judicial Member and Hon'ble Ms. Kavita Bhatnagar, Technical Member)

Order Date: June 19, 2026

Case Overview

The matter involves an application (CP No. (IB)-29/94/JPR/2026) filed by Rajani Goyal (Applicant/Creditor) under Section 94 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 against State Bank of India as the Financial Creditor and personal guarantor to the corporate debtor M/s S.V.M. Oil Mills Pvt. Ltd.

This represents the applicant's second attempt to initiate proceedings under Section 94. The first petition was filed on June 1, 2024, and was dismissed by the Adjudicating Authority on April 17, 2026, on the grounds that the petitioner was not the personal guarantor, making the Section 94 petition not maintainable. During the pendency of that first petition, the applicant had availed the benefit of an interim moratorium.

After the dismissal of the first petition, the applicant filed this second petition, contending that they now had supporting guarantee documents to establish their status as personal guarantor. On the previous hearing date of May 22, 2026, the Tribunal expressed reluctance to grant indulgence, noting that the petitioner should have been vigilant when approaching the court initially without supporting documents. The matter was adjourned to June 19, 2026, to allow arguments.

On the current hearing date, the applicant's counsel sought an adjournment via email dated June 18, 2026. The counsel for State Bank of India vehemently opposed this adjournment request, raising concerns about the applicant misusing the interim moratorium mechanism.

Final Outcome

The NCLT dismissed the petition and disposed of the case. The Tribunal noted the applicant's conduct of enjoying a prolonged interim moratorium during the first petition's pendency, only to file a second identical petition after dismissal. Citing the objections raised by the Financial Creditor and the applicant's conduct, the Tribunal stated it was "left with no option but to dismiss the petition." No relief was granted, and the interim moratorium was not extended.

Topics: Insolvency Proceedings, Personal Guarantor Liability, Banking Law