Authority: National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Court-V

Order Date: 07.07.2026

Case Overview

The National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) Mumbai Bench heard Company Petition (IB) 612 of 2026 filed by M/s Rite Nutan Homes Private Limited (formerly Nutan Resi Homes Private Limited) under Section 95(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The petition sought initiation of insolvency proceedings against Mrs. Anita Abhinandan Doshi as a personal guarantor for a default amount of ₹8,71,84,636 (Rupees Eight Crore Seventy-One Lakh Eighty-Four Thousand Six Hundred Thirty-Six Only) as of 31st December 2025, plus further interest.

The respondent had executed a Deed of Personal Guarantee dated 01.07.2022 along with Mr. Abhinandan Ashokkumar Doshi, guaranteeing repayment of a loan of ₹4,50,00,000 extended by the petitioner to Surya Landmark Developers Private Limited (CIN: U70102MH2008PTC188635). The loan carried interest at 24% per annum and was repayable by 31.12.2022. The petitioner disbursed ₹4,38,00,000 between 11.07.2022 and 01.12.2022, of which only ₹25,00,000 was repaid on 24.08.2022, leaving a principal outstanding of ₹4,13,00,000.

The petitioner issued a statutory demand notice in Form B on 14.01.2026. The respondent acknowledged receipt on 16.01.2026 but stated inability to pay due to financial constraints. As no payment was received, the petition was filed.

The tribunal examined the Deed of Personal Guarantee, specifically clauses 1, 3, and 11, which established that the guarantor's liability was co-extensive with the borrower's but required a written demand upon the guarantor for invocation. Clause 11 stated that "a written demand by the Lender shall be conclusive evidence of the amount due and payable by the Guarantor."

The court found that while seven demand notices (dated 04.01.2023, 02.03.2023, 12.09.2023, 07.02.2024, 29.10.2024, 12.08.2025, and 28.11.2025) were issued, all were addressed to the directors of Surya Landmark Developers Private Limited at the company's registered office. The respondent's name appeared only in the "CC to" section with her Thane address, but no evidence of dispatch, delivery, or service to her personally was provided. The acknowledgments on record contained signatures consistent with Mr. Abhinandan Ashokkumar Doshi, not the respondent. No separate demand notice addressed specifically to the respondent was attached to the petition.

The tribunal relied on the NCLAT judgment in State Bank of India & Anr v Deepak Kumar Singhania (Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 191 of 2025, decided on 28.02.2025), which held that unless a guarantee is invoked as per the deed's terms, the guarantor cannot be considered a debtor and no default can be committed by them.

Additionally, the petition failed to comply with Rule 7(2) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority for Insolvency Resolution Process of Personal Guarantors to Corporate Debtors) Rules, 2019, which requires serving a copy of the application to both the guarantor and the corporate debtor. While service to the respondent was evidenced via email dated 14.05.2026, no evidence of service to Surya Landmark Developers Private Limited was placed on record.

Final Outcome

The NCLT dismissed Company Petition (IB) 612 of 2026 as not maintainable due to: (1) failure to properly invoke the guarantee against the respondent through a written demand as required by the deed, and (2) non-compliance with mandatory service requirements to the corporate debtor under Rule 7(2). The ruling means no insolvency process can be initiated against Mrs. Anita Abhinandan Doshi based on this petition.

Topics: Personal Guarantee, Insolvency Petition, NCLT Proceedings